S.C. Gupte, J.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule taken up for hearing forthwith by consent of Counsel.

2. This petition challenges an order passed by the Labour Court at Bandra, Mumbai, in a reference made to it by the State Government under Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 ("Act"). The impugned order is passed on a miscellaneous application made in the reference (Exhibit C7). The dispute between the parties concerned amounts due under the Act to the second party journalists from their employer, the first party newspaper establishment.

The reference was opposed by the newspaper establishment (the Petitioner herein) on various grounds, including some grounds, which bore on the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain the reference. The case of the establishment was that the matters reflected in the reference order involved classification of the newspaper establishment as per Majithia Award, by which the emoluments payable to journalists and other newspaper employees of the establishment were governed. Majithia Award classifies newspaper establishments inter alia on the basis of their gross annual revenues. The parties in the present case are not ad idem on the correct classification to be applied to the Petitioner establishment. Whereas it is the case of the journalists that the correct classification to be applied is Class IV, it is the case of the newspaper establishment that it ought to be classified under Class VII based on its annual gross revenue. It is submitted by the establishment that decision on classification in a contested matter like the present would require the Labour Court to travel beyond its jurisdiction under Section 17(2) of the Act. It is submitted that since this issue goes to the root of the matter, it should not only be framed, as has been rightly done by the Labour Court, but should also be heard and decided as a preliminary issue, which the Labour Court has refused to do. That is the controversy in the present petition.

3. Section 17 of the Act is in the following terms:

17. Recovery of money due from an employer.(1) Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector, and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.

(2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act or law.

(3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in subsection (1).

Going by its plain words, it is palpably clear that Section 17 deals with recovery of money due from a newspaper establishment to its employees, both working journalists and other newspaper employees. Upon being satisfied as to the amount due under the Act, the State Government or its de