Judgement

PATHAK, CJI. : - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court affirming on appeal the judgment and order of a learned single Judge of the High Court declaring that the reference made by the Government of West Bengal in the dispute raised by the appellant is incompetent and invalid.

2. The appellant is a working journalist employed by the respondents, Messrs. Bennett Coleman and Company Limited. The registered office of the company is at Bomaby and its press is located in Calcutta. The sales office of the company is situated in Calcutta. On 1 November, 1961 the appellant was appointed a staff correspondent in the Calcutta office of the company. The letter of appointment dated 9 November, 1961 was issued by the company from its registered office at Bombay. Subsequently, the appellant was promoted to the post of Industrial Correspondent, Pune and was transferred from Calcutta to Pune from 16 February, 1976. Upon transfer to Pune the appellant received his remuneration and allowances from the Pune office of the company, and he was under the direct control and supervision of the registered office of the company situated in Bombay.

3. While the appellant was in Calcutta and before his transfer on promotion to Pune the appellant applied to the Labour Department, Government of West Bengal on 29 April, 1975 under sub-sec. (1) of S. 17, Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for recovery of the unpaid portion of his wages relating to the period April, 1968 to February, 1973 from the employer company. On 14 May, 1975 the Government of West Bengal initiated conciliation proceedings. The employer company participated in the conciliation proceedings and a joint conciliation meeting was held before the Conciliation Officer, Calcutta. The appellant was transferred to Pune while the report of the conciliation proceedings was still awaited. On 16 November, 1976 the Conciliation Officer reported failure of the conciliation proceedings and recommended that the dispute be referred to the Labour Court under sub-sec. (2) of S. 17 of the Act. Accordingly, the Government of West Bengal made a reference on 23 August, 1977 to the First Labour Court, West Bengal for the adjudication of the dispute between the parties. An objection was raised by the employer company before the First Labour Court that the reference was incompetent as the Government of West Bengal had no power to make the reference. On 11 July, 1980 the First Labour Court rejected the objection. The order was challenged by the employer company by a writ petition filed in the High Court. By his judgment and order dated 5 August, 1982, the learned single Judge held that the reference was incompetent. That view was affirmed by a Division Bench of the High Court in appeal. And now this appeal by special leave.

4. The question whether the Government of West Bengal was empowered to make a reference of the dispute between the appellant and the employer company must be determined by the provisions of the Act in their application to the facts of this case. Section 17 of the Act makes provision for the recovery of money due to a newspaper employee from his employer. Sub-section (1) requires that an application by the newspaper employee complaining that an amount due to him-has remained unpaid by the employer should be made to the State Government, and provides that if the State Government is satisfied that any amount is so due it is empowered to issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector, and thereupon the Collector must proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. Which is the State Government to which such application lies is indicated by R. 36 of the Rules made under the Act. Rule 36 provides that an application under S, 17 of the Act shall be made to the Government of the State w