ORDER :

(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.)

1. The issue which requires consideration in present case is, “whether Prescribed Authority under Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1955”) can consider a claim filed by workmen under Section 17(1) of Act, 1955 despite the it being a disputed claim?”

2. Learned counsel for parties have not seriously disputed the legal position with regard to above referred issue that application by a newspaper employees is to be filed under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of Act, 1955 as per Rule 36 of Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1957”). That application can be filed before State Government or such authority, as the State Government may specify in that behalf. Where there exists no dispute, the State Government or authority, so specified, upon being satisfied that any amount is so due, shall issue a certificate for that amount to Collector and Collector would, thereafter, recover that amount as an arrears of land revenue. Where a question or dispute arises then a reference is to be made to Labour Court for adjudication of dispute. After adjudicating the dispute, Labour Court has to forward its decision to State Government or authority which made the reference, upon which the amount is to be recovered in the manner provided by sub-section (1) of Section 17 of Act, 1955. Since Section 17, as a whole, creates a single seamless scheme, the State Government, in exercise of its power under sub-section (1) can specify an authority to do all acts which it has power to do under Section 17 of Act, 1955.

3. Respondents-workmen of petitioner-Company, i.e., Indian Express Pvt. Ltd., have claimed that they have provided their services even during period in question, i.e., 01.04.2020 to 28.02.2021, when the country was facing adverse situation due to Covid-19 Pandemic, however, still employer has deducted certain percentage of their monthly salary and since amount was pre-determined, therefore, Prescribed Authority under Section 17(1) of Act, 1955 has jurisdiction to allow claim.

4. Sri Sunil Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner has vehemently argued that it is not the question about determination of amount deducted as there is no dispute that said amount was deducted. Question before Prescribed Authority was that when employer has come up with a case that deduction was legal and contrary to it respondents-workmen have submitted that it was an illegal deduction, therefore, a dispute arose about legality of deduction, which could not be decided by Prescribed Authority under Section 17(1) of Act, 1955 and correct procedure was to refer a reference to Labour Court for adjudication of dispute.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner has further submitted that petitioner has also challenged notification dated 29.03.2020 issued by Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred under Section 10(2)(I) of Disaster Management Act, 2005 that District Magistrate shall take measures that all the employees, be it in industry or in the shops and commercial establishments, shall make payment of wages of their workers, at their work places, on due date, without any deduction, for the period their establishments are under closure during lockdown.

6. Learned counsel has further submitted that impugned notification is arbitrary and without considering that employer has suffered financial loss due to irregular publication of newspapers and magazines during lockdown period, therefore, they cannot be forced not to deduct any salary. He, however, fairly submitted that direction in impugned notification was not considered either directly or indirectly in impugned order.

7. Sri Ramesh Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for respondents-workmen, also vehemently argued that workmen have continuously worked even during the period