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 expedited resolution for labor disputes.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

Facts-

2. The present petition challenges the impugned order dated 2nd July, 2018 in F.No. F-24 (06) WJA/CD/88-98 & 106/2017/01-06 passed by the ld. Dy. Labour Commissioner Central District, New Delhi (hereinafter "Authority") by which the Authority has framed the terms of reference and referred the dispute relating to arrears of salary of the Respondents/Workmen to the Labour Court, Dwarka Court complex, Central District. Vide the said order, the Authority has referred the claims of the Respondent No.4-15 relating to amount due, arising out of implementation of recommendations of Majithia Wage Board given under the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter "Working Journalists Act").

Background history of the dispute-

3. Two Wage Boards were constituted by the Government on 24th May 2007 under Sections 9 and 13C of the Working Journalists Act for making recommendations in respect of revision of wages of Journalists and Non- Journalists Newspaper Employees. Both the Wage Boards were headed by Justice Gurbaksh Singh Majithia, Retired Judge of the Bombay High Court. The said Wage Boards (hereinafter "Majithia Wage Board") made their recommendations and the said recommendations were accepted and notified by the Government vide Notification NO. S.O.-2532(E) dated 11th November 2011. The recommendations of the Majithia Wage Board were challenged in APB Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 327 wherein the Supreme Court vide a detailed judgment dated 7th February 2014 held the recommendations to be valid in law based on genuine and acceptable considerations. The conclusion of the Supreme Court in the said judgment is as under:

"72. Thus, it is the prerogative of the Central Government to accept or reject the recommendations of the Wage Boards. There is no scope for hearing the parties once again by the Central Government while accepting or modifying the recommendations, except that the modifications are of such nature which alter the character of the recommendations and such modification is likely to affect the parties. The mere fact that in the present case, the Government has not accepted a few recommendations will not automatically affect the validity of the entire Report. Further, the Government has not accepted all those suggestions including those pertaining to retirement age, etc. as these are beyond the mandate for which the Wage Boards were constituted. Regarding fixation of pay, assured career development, there have been proposals in the recommendations which are in the manner of providing higher pay scale after completion of certain number of years which cannot be treated as time-bound promotion.

73. Accordingly, we hold that the recommendations of the Wage Boards are valid in law, based on genuine and acceptable considerations and there is no valid ground for interference under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, all the writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.

74. In view of our conclusion and dismissal of all the writ petitions, the wages as revised/ determined shall be payable from 11-11-2011 when the Government of India notified the recommendations of the Majithia Wage Boards. All the arrears up to March 2014 shall be paid to all eligible persons in four equal instalments within a period of one year from today and continue to pay the revised wages from April 2014