The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Government to serve notice and hear the affected parties before making modifications under the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955.

1. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks direction to the Union of India/respondent No.1 to renotify the notifications dated 05.12.2000 and 15.12.2000.

2. The facts giving rise to the petition are that for the purpose of enabling the Central Government to fix or revise the wages in respect of journalists and non-journalists newspaper employees and news agency employees, two Wage Boards were constituted under Sections 9 and 13C of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (in short WJ Act) on 02.09.1994 by the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour. The recommendations were submitted to the Central Government on 25.07.2000. By notification dated 05.12.2000, the Ministry of Labour, Government of India in exercise of its power under Section 12 of the WJ Act issued the orders for implementation of the recommendations of the Wage Board which is called as Manisana Wage Board Award to be effective from 01.04.1998.

3. Another notification dated 15.12.2000 was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, under Section 12 of the WJ Act making certain modification in the beforesaid notification dated 05.12.2000.

4. A writ petition No.28588/2001 was filed by M/s Manipal Media Network Limited before the High Court of Karnataka challenging the notifications dated 05.12.2000 and 15.12.2000 mentioned here-in-before and the writ petition was allowed on 01.02.2006. Para No.5 of the judgment reads as under:-

“In my opinion, the Central Government ought to have issued notices to the petitioner prior to passing of the orders Annexures “J” and “K”, as the modifications made by the Central Government would increase the liability of the petitioner in the payment of wages to the journalists. In the absence of issuance of notice to the petitioner, the material modifications made by the Central Government are vitiated. Accordingly, the orders passed by the Central Government dated 05.12.2000 and 15.12.2000 produced as Annexures “J” and “K” respectively are quashed in so far as they relate to the petitioner herein and the matter is remitted to the Central Government respondent No.1 for reconsideration in accordance with law after issuing notice to the petitioner.

5. Subsequently, Indian Newspaper Society (INS) of which respondent No.2 is a member, challenged the notification dated 15.12.2000 modifying the rates of wages as fixed in consequence of the notification dated 05.12.2000 in this Court by WP (C) 4940/2002. During the course of the arguments, it was impressed that Karnataka High Court, vide its order dated 01.02.2006, has struck down the notification dated 15.12.2000 being in contravention of Section 12 (2) of the WJ Act as no notice was given by the Government to the affected parties before modifying the Award. While disposing of the writ petition on 21.11.2006, this court observed that Government should have served a notice on the petitioner and heard them before issuing the modification. Taking note of the fact that the notification had been struck down by the Karnataka High Court, this Court observed that this notification does not survive and the writ petition was allowed. It was also noted that the Government shall be free to bring in case it still intends to, the modifications after following the procedure as laid down under the Act. The relevant Para of the judgment reads as here under:-

“It is a settled position of law that whatever an additional burden is put by way of modification on a party, the party must be heard. I consider that the Government should have served a notice on the petitioners and heard the petitioners before issuing modification.

Since notification has already been struck down by Karnataka High Court and I have been informed on instructions from Sh. Sher Shah, Under Secretary that the order of Karnataka High Court has not been challenged so far, for all practical purposes, this notification does not su