JUDGMENT :

PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

1. After hearing the matter, this Court had called for the records of Writ-C No. 23212 of 2021. As the issue raised in both the writ petitions is common, both the writ petitions are being decided by means of this common order. For the sake of brevity, Writ-C No. 10149 of 2023 is being decided as a leading case.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 11.10.2022, 07.11.2022 and 04.01.2023 whereby total of 57 references have been consolidated and decided.

3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is a newspaper establishment as defined under section 2(d) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Condition of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (herein after referred to as 'WJ Act'). The petitioner is situated at Noida and is engaged in the business of printing of newspaper in the name and style of 'Dainik Jagran'. In addition to the said, the petitioner is also engaged in the news through electronic media and website etc.

4. It is claimed that the respondent no. 1 of Writ Petition No. 10419 of 2023 was appointed on the post of Dispatcher on probation basis w.e.f. 01.11.2007 with the petitioner. Similarly the other claimants in the fifty six references were also employed in a similar capacity.

5. It is argued that the Central Government in compliance of the mandate of the 'WJ Act', constituted two Wage Boards for journalist and non-journalist employees under section 9 and 13-C of the 'WJ Act'. The said wage boards gave its recommendations which were notified by the Central Government on 11.11.2011. It is argued that the recommendations so made by the Majithia Wage Board (hereinafter referred to as 'Wage Board') were challenged along with the vires of the Act of 1955, which was decided by the Supreme Court vide order dated 07.02.2014. It is argued that in terms of the recommendations made by the Wage Board, para 20-J of the said recommendations specifically provided as under:

20(J) The revised pay scales shall become applicable to all employees with effect from the 1st of July 2010. However, if an employee within three weeks from the date of publication of the Government Notification u/s 12 of the Act enforcing these recommendations exercises his/her option for retaining his existing pay scales and existing emoluments, he/she shall be entitled to retain his/her existing scales and such emoluments.

6. It is argued that as no alternation was made by the Central Government to the recommendations of the Wage Board, as such the provision of Clause 20(J) also stood notified. It is argued that in terms of the mandate of para 20(J) of the recommendations as notified by the Central Government, the respondent no. 1 along with other persons, who are covered in the awards, gave an option to retain the existing wages and existing emoluments through a voluntary undertaking. It is argued that despite giving an undertaking in terms of the clause 20(J) of the Wage Board, the respondent no. 1 with a group of 198 persons filed a claim under section 17(1) of the Act before the office of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, New Delhi. As the issue of jurisdiction arose finally, in terms of the order of the High Court, Delhi passed in Writ Petition No. 5606 of 2016, the matters were relegated to be agitated before the authorities at Noida and thereafter a fresh applications under section 17(1) were filed before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Noida on 01.02.2018 claiming an amount of Rs.36,28,430/- in respect of the respondent no. 1 (Annexure no. 7). Similar applications were filed by the other employees also. The petitioner filed their reply/objection to the said applications under section 17(1) on 17.04.2018 (in respect of opposite party no. 1).

7. The petitioners filed their objection to the application filed by the employees and denied their liability to pay any amounts mainly on the foundation of clause 20 (j) of the Wage Board read with voluntary undertaking by the emplo