S. NAINAR SUNDARAM, J.

( 1 ) ALL the three Special Civil Application can be disposed of by a common order. Though various prayers are raised, the moot question that arises for consideration as per the pleas put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is as to whether the for a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent to recover the dues of the Petitioners as arrears of land revenue. petitioners could claim the status of Working Journalists and as such newspaper employees within the meaning of the Working Journalists And Other Newspaper employees (Conditions of Service) And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 45 of 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The status claimed by the petitioners is being disputed by the contesting respondents. The endeavour on the part of Mr. H. A. Raichura, learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the machinery under sec. 17 (2) of the Act must be set in motion even to decide this question. Section 17 as it stands today as a whole reads as follows :"17. Recovery of money due from an employer :- (1) Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employer himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector, and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of Industrial Disputes in force in the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act or law. (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour court may be recovered in the manner provided in sub-sec. (1) "

( 2 ) SO far as regards Sec. 17 (1) is concerned, its working will come into play only when there is no dispute of any nature either with regard to the status claimed by the person as the newspaper employee or the quantum of the amount claimed as due by him from the employer. The condition precedent for invocation of Sec. 17 (1) is a prior determination by a competent authority or forum as to the amount due to the newspaper employee from his employer and that too under the Act. It is only after the amount due to the newspaper employee from his employer under the act stands determined, without any disputation over it, the stage will be set for recovery as per Sec. 17 (1 ). Though Sec. 17 (1) speaks about the State Government or the specified authority being satisfied as to "any amount is so due", the enquiry in this behalf could not be at a summary level and for a limited purpose to find out as to whether the amount already determined continues to be due or has been discharged fully or partially. Within the scop ze of Sec. 17 (1) determination as such of the amount due, would not fall. Section 17 (2) of the Act in contrast by the very opening set of expressions, namely "if any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer", sets down the process for determination of the amount due. That could only be on the hypothesis that there is no dispute with reference to the right of the person to claim

Click Here to Read the rest of this document