IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Head of Human Resource Dainik Bhaskar Group – Appellant
Versus
Shri. Dinesh Devidas Pardeshi – Respondent
Writ Petition No.11646, 11665 of 2019, Writ Petition No. 4858 to 4870, 10774 of 2022
Decided on : 22-12-2022
Wage Board Recommendations - Working Journalists and Other Newspapers Employees - The Working Journalists and Other Newspapers Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 - Section 9, Section 13-C, Notification dated 11.11.2011 - The court discussed the provisions of the Act of 1955, including Section 9 for fixation of wages and revision, Section 13-C for non-journalist newspaper employees, and the Notification dated 11.11.2011 implementing the recommendations of the Wage Boards.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, a private limited company engaged in multi-ferrous business activities, challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Aurangabad, and the order rejecting the review petition. The employees claimed benefits under the Majithia Wage Board recommendations, and the Assistant Labour Commissioner made References to the Labour Court for adjudication. The petitioners sought review of the award, and the present petitions were filed challenging the awards and orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the References made by the Assistant Labour Commissioner were not maintainable as the power of delegation was not conferred on the State Government under Section 17(2) of the Act of 1955. The court set aside the awards and allowed the employees to exercise other remedies for enforcement of their rights.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the References made by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, the delay in filing the petitions, and the availability of remedies for the employees to claim wages as per the recommendations of the Majithia Wage Board.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the References made by the Assistant Labour Commissioner were not maintainable due to the lack of power of delegation conferred on the State Government under Section 17(2) of the Act of 1955. The court also allowed the employees to exercise other remedies for enforcement of their rights.
Final Decision: The court set aside the awards passed by the Labour Court and dismissed Writ Petition No. 10774 of 2022. The amount deposited by the petitioners in this Court was to be withdrawn by them after a period of eight weeks from the date of the judgment.
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, matters are taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.
2. In these group of petitions petitioners challenge the award dated 04.01.2019 passed by the Member, Labour Court, Aurangabad in Reference IDA No.20/2017 as well as order dated 10.06.2019 rejecting Review Petition No.09/2019. By amending petitions, the order dated 14.09.2022 passed by the Additional Tahsildar, Aurangabad seeking enforcement of the awards has also been challenged.
3. Petitioner is a private limited company engaged in multi-ferrous business activities in the areas of Radio, Media (print and electronics), Textile, Real Estate etc. Petitioner claims to be one of the largest print media groups in the country with 65 newspaper editions published in 4 languages having readership of 4.4 crores across 13 States. Its annual revenues have been described in one of the litigations as more than Rs.1000/- crores.
4. Respondents in these petitions have been appointed by petitioners on various posts. For the purpose of illustration, the details of appointment of respondent no.2 in Writ Petition No.4859/2022 are discussed. Respondent no.2 was offered an appointment by petitioners on the post of Telephone Operator on 10.06.2011. Upon acceptance of an offer, appointment order came to be issued in favour of respondent no.2 on 12.06.2011 appointing him as Telephone Operator with effect from 13.06.2011. The salary package offered to respondent no.2 was in the form of Cost to Company (CTC) package of Rs.1,08,000/- per annum.
5. The Working Journalists and Other Newspapers Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act of 1955’) has been enacted to regulate the conditions of employment of working journalists and other newspaper employees in pursuance of recommendations of Press Commission. Section 9 of the Act of 1955 provides for fixation of wages and revision thereof in respect of working journalists by the Central Government. Section 13-C of the Act of 1955 provides for fixation and revision of wages in respect of non-journalist newspaper employees. The Government of India constituted two Wage Boards under the provisions of Sections 9 and 13-C of the Act of 1955 by Notification dated 24.05.2007. The Wage Boards submitted their recommendations to the Central Government on 31.05.2010. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 12 of the Act of 1955 the Central Government issued Notification dated 11.11.2011 for implementation of recommendations of Wage Boards in respect of working journalists and non-journalist newspapers employees. The recommendations of Wage Boards implemented by the Notification dated 11.11.2011 are popularly known as recommendations of ‘Majithia Wage Board’.
6. Clause 20(j) of the Notification dated 11.11.2011 provides for exercise of option by an employee to retain existing emoluments within three weeks of publication of the Notification dated 11.11.2011. It is the case of petitioners that the respective employees in the present petitions executed such options in the form of declarations under Clause 20(j) of the Notification and thereby opted for retention of existing emoluments.
7. Applications were filed on 18.01.2017 by employees in the present petitions before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Aurangabad under Section 17(1) of the Act of 1955 claiming benefits under the Majithia Wage Board recommendations. The Assistant Labour Commissioner took cognizance of the application dated 18.01.2017 and made References to the Labour Court, Aurangabad for adjudication under the provisions of Section 17(2) of the Act of 1955.
8. Upon Reference being made to the Labour Court, the employees filed their statements of claim claiming differences of arrears of salary as per Notification dated 11.11.2011. The claims are resisted by petitioners by filing written statement raising various defences. The Labour Court made award dated 04.01.2019
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the lack of power of delegation conferred on the State Government under Section 17(2) of the Act of 1955, rendering the References made by the Assi....
The Act 1955 constitutes a single scheme for the recovery of money due from an employer to an employee, and the notification specifying the officers competent to dispose of applications under Section....
Under Section 17(2) of the Act of 1972 which mandates that if any question arises as regards the amount due, it is the duty of the State Government either on an application or by itself to refer it t....
The state government has the authority to refer wage disputes to the Labour Court under Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists Act, providing a valid mechanism for individual claims despite jurisdi....
Section 17(2) Labour Court can determine incidental questions of category, cadre and nature of work while computing benefits due under notified wage board recommendations.
The Act does not require notice to the employer before making a reference to the Adjudicatory Mechanism, and the Adjudicatory Mechanism is intended to provide an opportunity of hearing to the employe....
The court affirmed that the Labour Courts in Delhi have jurisdiction for disputes arising from the Majithia Wage Board recommendations based on combined cause of action and situs tests, emphasizing e....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.