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 jurisdictional challenges.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Both these cases involve common questions of law and are being disposed of by a common order.

Brief Facts:

WPL No. 1141/2025

3. The Petitioner in this case assails the Reference Notification No. 2231 dated 26.12.2024. This notification referred the dispute to the Labour Court, Jamshedpur, to decide if the denial of the Rs. 1.78 Crore claim of the Respondent, Ajay Kumar Singh was justified.

The case revolves around a claim of unpaid wages amounting to Rs. 1,78,56,868/- made by the employee, Ajay Kumar Singh, under the recommendations of the Majithia Wage Board. The Petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of the Labour authorities in Jamshedpur to entertain the claim and the subsequent notification referring the matter to the Labour Court.

Ajay Kumar Singh, working as a Senior Correspondent, filed an application on 23.12.2023 before the Deputy Labour Commissioner (DLC), Bokaro. He claimed arrears under the Majithia Wage Board and raised issues regarding his transfer from Chaibasa to Jamshedpur. Since the employee was last posted in Jamshedpur (West Singhbhum), the DLC Bokaro transferred the matter to the Additional Labour Commissioner, Jamshedpur, vide letter dated 10.02.2024, citing lack of territorial jurisdiction.

The Labour Superintendent, Jamshedpur, issued a notice on 20.03.2024 asking the Petitioner management to appear. On 27.04.2024, the Petitioner appeared and filed a preliminary objection. They argued that under a Government Notification dated 21.04.2016, the power to deal with wage claims under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists Act, 1955 was delegated solely to the Labour Commissioner, Jharkhand. Therefore, the Labour Superintendent or DLC Jamshedpur had no jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The Labour Superintendent, Jamshedpur, sent a report (Letter No. 2489) dated 05.08.2024 to the State Government. He noted that the management disputed the claim and the amount. Consequently, he recommended that the dispute be referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act, as settlement was not possible.

Acting on the recommendation, the State Government issued Reference Notification No. 2231 dated 26.12.2024. This notification referred the dispute to the Labour Court, Jamshedpur to decide if the denial of the Rs. 1.78 Crore claim was justified. The terms of reference reads as follows:

“Whether, denial of payment of Rupees 1,78,56,868 (One Crore Seventy Eight Lakh Fifty Six Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Eight) claimed by an employee of Prabhat Khabar (Jamshedpur) Unit Shree Ajay Kumar Singh, under recommendation made by Majethia Wage Board, by his Management, M/s Neutral Publishing House Limited, 15-p Kokar Industrial Area (Prabhat Khabar) is justified? If not, What relief he is intitled to”?

4. Learned counsel for the respondent- State argues that the Labour Superintendent acted within his powers as an "Inspector" appointed under Section 17-B of the Act (vide notification dated 27.05.2015). They assert that since the amount was disputed, Section 17(1) (recovery of admitted dues) did not apply, and the State correctly referred the matter to the Labour Court under Section 17(2) for adjudication. No separate counter affidavit has been filed by the contesting employee and his council adopts the above stand in support of the notification.

WPL No. 1147/2025

5. In this case the Petitioner seeks the quashing of notification No. 2068 dated 29/11/2024, alleging that the reference of dispute was in contravention of the provisions contained in Section 17(1) and 17(2) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Cond