JUDGMENT

Kurian Joseph, J.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 269 OF 2015 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO. 10134/2010)

1. Leave granted.

2. Whether the Appellant is liable to be prosecuted Under Section 25U read with Section 29and under Serial No. 13 of the Fifth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the I.D. Act') is the question arising for consideration in this case. The allegation is that the recommendations of the Manisana Wage Board have not been properly implemented, a section of the journalists have been discriminated in a hostile manner and thus, there is unfair labour practice.

3. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Patna preferred a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna with the allegations referred to above seeking prosecution of the Appellant Under Section 25U read with Section 29 of the I.D. Act.

4. The Appellant preferred a petition before the High Court Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, the same was dismissed holding that the complaint was maintainable and thus, the present appeal.

5. Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior Counsel, submits that the prosecution under the provisions of I.D. Act is not maintainable as there is no award or settlement or agreement which has been violated so as to make them liable for prosecution. The Wage Board under the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (for short, 'Working Journalists Act'), has only given their recommendations as per Section 10 and Under Section 12, the same have been notified by the Central Government. In case, the orders notified Under Section 12 are not implemented, the remedy is Under Section 17 of the Working Journalists Act for recovery of money due from the employer. Under Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists Act, if there is any dispute with regard to the amount due under the Act, it is for the State Government to refer the question to the Labour Court of competent jurisdiction constituted under the provisions of the I.D. Act and it is for that Court to pass the award. In case such an award is not complied with, then alone arises a question of prosecution Under Section 25U, even if the Industrial Disputes Act as such is applicable.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the State and the Employees Union submits that by virtue of Section 3 of the Working Journalists Act, the provisions of I.D. Act as such have been made applicable, the recommendations of the Wage Board is an award, the award has not been implemented in its letter and spirit, a section of the employees has been discriminated and thus, the prosecution is maintainable.

7. The moot question is as to the jurisdiction of the Court to proceed under the provisions of the I.D. Act. Section 3 of the Working Journalists Act reads as follows:

3. Act 14 of 1947 to apply to working journalists.-(1) The provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), as in force for the time being, shall, subject to the modification specified in Sub-section (2), apply to, or in relation to, working journalists as they apply to, or in relation to, workmen within the meaning of that Act.

8. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Working Journalists Act provides for a modification in the application of Section 25F; which is not relevant in the present case. As per Section 3 of the Working Journalists Act, the provisions of the I.D. Act have been made applicable to the working journalists, as if they are workmen under the I.D. Act. Thus, being a legislation by reference, provisions of I.D. Act are applicable so far as working journalists are concerned.

9. An award is defined Under Section 2(b) of the I.D. Act, which reads as follows:

2 (b) "award" means an interim or a final determination of any industrial dispute or of any question relating thereto by any Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal or National Industrial Tribunal and includes an arbitration award made Under Section 10A;

10. The provision would show that it must be the determina