2019 Supreme(Pat) 712

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SHIVAJI PANDEY, J.
Jagaran Prakashan Limited – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Labour Resources Department, Niyojan Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna-800001 – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10998 of 2018
Decided on : 25-09-2019

Headnote:

Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 – Sections 13, 16 and 17 read with Clause 20 (j) of Majithia Wage Board Award – Entitlement and enforcement of Majithia Wage Board Award in respect to working journalist as well as non-working journalist attached to different paper industries – Basically, claim has been made by working journalist and non-working journalist that they are entitled to receive wages as per Majithia Wage Board, once recommendation has been accepted and notified by Central Government – Notification of Wage Board recommendation supersedes all existing arrangements including contractual arrangements, governing conditions of service of working journalist and non-working journalist employees and their service condition would be governed as per Wage Board Award – Every working journalist and non-working journalist shall be entitled to be paid by employer not less than rates of wages specified under Wage Board – Working Journalist Act is beneficial piece of legislation, it requires liberal interpretation, but would not mean of doing violence to plain and simple language used in statutory provision, it is not reasonable or permissible duty or work of Court to rewrite statutory provision – Basic facet of beneficent legislation is to ameliorate service conditions of weaker section, must receive such interpretation as to advance intendment underlying the Act and defeat the mischief – Wage Board Award cannot be read in derogation to provision of Working Journalist Act – Authority will have jurisdiction to recover amount which has not been disputed – The moment dispute has been raised either, on question of law or on fact, Authority ceases of its power to calculate amount and to proceed for recovery of said amount, but in that event, it requires Government would refer dispute to Labour Court for adjudication – Order passed by Joint Labour Commissioner as well as proceeding of Recovery Officer quashed – Government directed to refer dispute under Section 17 (2) of Working Journalist Act to Labour Court. (Paras 14, 27, 38, 45 and 46)

Interpretation of Statute – Where legislature enacts a law for solution of human problem, in interpretation of construction of such legislation and particularly judging its validity, courts should approach it, from point of furthering purpose of legislation – In case of any ambiguity Court would lean in favour of worker who is weaker before management which itself is a giant, whereas workers are always required protection. (Para 27)

Interpretation of Statute – Court cannot read anything not mentioned into statutory provision where words are plain, simple and unambiguous – A statute is edict of legislature – Object of interpreting a statute is to ascertain intention of legislature which would be gathered from language used in formulation of statutory provision of statute – Attention should be given to what has not been mentioned in statutory provision – It is contrary to law of interpretation of Statute, to import words into an Act in name of interpretation of statutory provision unless it is absolutely necessary or unless provisions as it stands is meaningless and brings absurd situation, creates anomalies and injustice, except in that situation, Courts would read words of Statute in plain and simple manner as stand in statutory provision – To ascertain legislative intent, all constituent parts of a statute are to be taken together and each word, phrase or sentence is to be considered in light of general purpose and object of the Act. (Paras 28 and 29)

Precedent – A case is only an authority for what it actually decides – Ratio of any decision must be understood in background of facts of that case – A decision cannot be relied on without disclosing factual situation – Observations of Courts are not to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provision of statute – Observations must be read in context in which they appear – Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. (Paras 34, 35 and 36)