JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent of learned counsel appearing for the rival parties.

3. By this writ petition, the petitioner (employer) has challenged order dated 06/06/2015, passed by the respondent No.2 i.e. Assistant Labour Commissioner, whereby an application filed by respondent No.1 (employee) under Section 17 of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, has been allowed in its entirety and directions have been given to the petitioner to pay certain amounts claimed by the respondent No.1 employee.

4. On 02/12/2019, this Court recorded the question that arose for consideration. The said order reads as follows:-

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The question that is raised on behalf of the petitioner is that in the present case, respondent No.2 could not have decided the dispute between the parties on the question of entitlement of amounts as claimed by respondent No.1 by seeking to exercise power under section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 and i