Point of law: State Government had empowered the Deputy Labour Commissioner to dispose of application under Section 17 of the Act which would include power to refer to the labour Court as it was a step-in-aid for disposal of the application under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act. Therefore the specified authority did not lack jurisdiction to make a reference to the labour Court. Accordingly, the reference order does not suffer from jurisdictional error

JUDGMENT :

Jahangir Jamshed Munir, J.

1. All these writ petitions call in question a notification issued by the State Government in exercise of their power under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Misc. Provisions Act, 1995 (for short the Act), whereby the Government have delegated their powers under Section 17(1) last mentioned to officers specified in the 2nd Column of the Schedule appended to the aforesaid notification. In Column 3 of the Schedule appended to the notification aforesaid, the territories in respect of which each of the officers mentioned in Column 2 would exercise jurisdiction, have been shown, and referred to as the notified area there. The aforesaid notification is hereinafter referred to as the impugned notification.

In exercise of powers conferred by the impugned notification, the officers delegated those powers have made references of disputed claims to wages payable under the Act, relating to their notified area between the petitioners in each of the writ petitions, and the concerned workman, to the Labour Court exercising jurisdiction in that area. These reference orders are, therefore, of different dates, made by different officers in exercise of delegated powers relating to their notified area and in reference to different workmen. These reference orders are, therefore, different in each of the writ petitions. However, what is common to all these reference orders is the fact that all these have been made by officers in exercise of powers under Section 17(2) of the Act, delegated under the impugned notification.

There is not much quarrel on facts so far as the issue involved in the present case is concerned, or is there any difference on facts between various writ petitions regarding that issue. The dispute involved is, therefore, identical on facts and law in all the writ petitions. These are, therefore, being disposed of by means of this common judgment and order.

2. Writ-C No. 9321 of 20.19 has been heard as the leading case. Sri Sunil Kumar Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for the three petitioner, that is to say, Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd., Amar Ujala and United Bharat, who between them have filed all these 28 writ petitions, and different learned Counsel appearing for different workmen in each of the writ petitions, have addressed the Court. In order to set the record straight, respondent No. 4 to all the writ petitions are the different workman at whose instance reference orders have been made, that are challenged in the various petitions. Respondent No. 1 is the State, respondent No. 2 in all the petitions is the Jurisdictional Labour Court and respondent No. 3 is the Assistant/Deputy/Additional Labour Commissioner, by whom the impugned reference orders in each of the writ petition have been made. These respondents arrayed as respondents Nos. 1, 2 & 3 in each of the writ petitions, have been represented by the learned Standing Counsel at the hearing.

3. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri D.S.M. Tripathi and S/Sri Ashutosh Mani, Kripa Shankar Singh, Manmohan Singh and Gopal Narayan, learned Counsel appearing for the private respondents in the leading petition and all connected matters at considerable length and the learned Standing; Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents.

4. In order to understand the facts giving rise to the cause of action and identical challenge involved in the leading case and the connected matters, it would be gainful to refer to facts giving rise to the petition dealt with as the leading case. The petitioner, Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd. are a company incorporated under the Companies, Act having its branches at various places in the country, and amongst them, a branch office at Jagatganj, Teliyabagh, Varanasi. The petitioner is engaged in the publication of a newspapers in Hindi, going by the name "Hindustan'. It is acknowledged that the petit