The Act does not require notice to the employer before making a reference to the Adjudicatory Mechanism, and the Adjudicatory Mechanism is intended to provide an opportunity of hearing to the employer regarding the claim raised by the employee.

JUDGMENT

Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral) - This is a petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 31.12.2018 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No.l; referring the matter to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Hisar, under Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, for adjudication of the claim of wages of 56 employees i.e. respondent Nos.4 to 59, with a further prayer for staying the impugned order passed by respondent No.l.

2. The brief facts, as involved in the present case are that the petitioner is a company running newspaper 'Dainik Bhaskar' frommultiple locations. The respondent Nos.4 to 59 are the employees of the petitioner. The respondent Nos.4 to 59 had a dispute regarding the payment of their wages. They had moved applications to the appropriate government/authorities i.e. respondent Nos.l and 2. The appropriate government found that there was a dispute regarding payment of wages, therefore, the matter has been referred to the Labour Court for adjudication upon the dispute and for determination of the right of the respective parties. Challenging the said reference made by the appropriate government, the present petition has been filed.

3. The solitary argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appropriate government had sent a notice regarding the dispute of only 33 employees, whereas, the reference has been made qua 55 employees. Therefore, the reference made by the appropriate government is in violation of the procedure prescribed under the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (for short, the Act). Learned counsel has further submitted that since the notice to the petitioner was given only qua 33 employees, therefore, reference could have been made only qua those employees. As an ancillary argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the appropriate government could not have made any reference qua the remaining employees; without giving notice to the petitioner and without coming to the conclusion, after hearing both the sides, that there was a dispute. Unless the intention of the petitioner was known to the government, it is not possible to say that there existed any dispute between the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 to 59. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by thisCourt in Jagran Parkashan Limited Versus State of Punjab and others, CWPNo.l6275of2018, decided on 25.03.2019.

4. To ascertain the fact whether the appropriate government ever received any application from the employees, other than 33 or not, the State was asked to file affidavit in this regard. The affidavit was filed by the State, wherein it has been asserted that the claim of 56 employees was received. Since, the claimed amounts had not been paid by the petitioner, therefore, in the opinion of the government, there existed a dispute. Since, the dispute required adjudication by the adjudicatory body as required under Section 17 (2) of the above said Act, therefore, the matter was rightly referred to the Labour Court for proper adjudication and decision.

5. In view of the above, it is clear that so far as the State Government is concerned, it had received the claim of 56 employees. The said employees had raised a dispute regarding non-payment of their wages. Finding substance in the claim of the employees, the matter qua 56 employees has been referred.

6. Learned State counsel has filed an affidavit in response to the order of this Court dated 22.03.2022, which is taken on record.

7. Before appreciating the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is appropriate to have a reference to the provisions as contained in Section 17 of the Act, which are reproduced as under:-

"17. Recovery of money du