SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 489

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.
The Indian Express Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India - Respondent
WRIT - C No. - 292 of 2024, WRIT - C No. - 21508, 21512, 21513, 21526, 21531, 21538, 21553, 21575, 21577, 21593 of 2023
Decided On : 12-04-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sunil Kumar Tripathi, Devesh Tripathi,Sandeep Pandey
For the Respondent: A.S.G.I.,Anand Kumar Chaubey, Man Mohan Singh, C.S.C.

IMPORTANT POINT
The Act 1955 constitutes a single scheme for the recovery of money due from an employer to an employee, and the notification specifying the officers competent to dispose of applications under Section 17 and the power of reference to the Labour Court were upheld by the court.

Headnote:

Working Journalists - Challenge to Notification - Act 1955, Section 17 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The judgment discusses the challenge to a notification issued by the State Government specifying the officers competent to dispose of applications under Section 17 of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Misc. Provisions Act, 1955. The court analyzes the provisions of the Act 1955, including definitions of 'newspaper,' 'newspaper employee,' and 'non-journalist newspaper employees,' as well as the procedure for fixing and revising rates of wages for working journalists and non-journalist newspaper employees. The court also refers to previous judgments and the delegation of power by the State Government to dispose of applications under Section 17. The judgment concludes by dismissing the writ petitions challenging the notification and the decision of the Labour Court.

Fact of the Case:

The Indian Express Pvt. Ltd. challenged a notification issued by the State Government specifying the officers competent to dispose of applications under Section 17 of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Misc. Provisions Act, 1955. The petitioner, a media group known as 'Indian Express Group,' contested the jurisdiction of the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the decision of the Labour Court regarding the payment of wages to newspaper employees.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the notification and the decision of the Labour Court, upholding the notification and the power of reference to the Labour Court. The court also found that the decision of the Labour Court on the payment of wages to the employees warranted no interference.

Issues: The issues raised in the case included the jurisdiction of the Assistant Labour Commissioner to refer a disputed issue under Section 17(2) of the Act 1955, the requirement for permission of the appropriate Government for publishing the award, and the competence of the Assistant Labour Commissioner to refer a dispute raised by an individual workman for adjudication of a dispute other than discharge, dismissal, or termination.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the notification specifying the officers competent to dispose of applications under Section 17 of the Act 1955 had already been upheld in a previous judgment, and the power of reference to the Labour Court had also been upheld. The court also found that the decision of the Labour Court on the payment of wages to the employees warranted no interference.

Final Decision: The court dismissed all the writ petitions challenging the notification and the decision of the Labour Court, with no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT :

Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.

1. Through all these writ petitions, a challenge has been made to the notification dated 12.11.2014 issued by State Government specifying the officers mentioned in Column II to be “authorities competent” to dispose the application under Section 17 of “Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Misc. Provisions Act, 1955” (for short ‘Act 1955’), the reference order dated 10.03.2023 passed by Assistant Labour Commissioner, Gautam Budh Nagar and order dated 22.05.2023 passed by Labour Court, NOIDA rejecting the application regarding jurisdiction of Court.

2. Writ Petition No. 292 of 2024 assails the order dated 10.11.2023 passed by Labour Court, NOIDA, Gautam Budh Nagar in WJA Case No. 01/2023, 02/2023, 03/2023, 04/2023, 05/2023, 06/2023, 07/2023, 08/2023, 09/2023, 10/2023 and 11/2023. As all the cases are interconnected and petitioner is same in all the writ petitions, with the consent of the parties, they are heard and decided together. Writ Petition No. 292 of 2024 is taken as the leading case.

3. Petitioner before this Court, The Indian Express Pvt. Ltd. is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act having its registered office at Mumbai and branch office at NOIDA at Express Building B1/B Sector 10 NOIDA and also a factory at NOIDA. It is a media group known as “Indian Express Group” or “Express Group”. Respondent nos. 7 to 15 are newspaper employees of petitioner company as defined under Section 2(c) of Act 1955. Except respondent no. 13 who is a working journalist as defined under Section 2(f). The other contesting respondents are non-journalist newspaper employees covered under Section 2(dd) of the Act 1955.

4. The Act 1955 was enacted for improvement and regulation of service condition of working journalists and other employees. The Act covers entitlement of gratuity, provident fund settlement of industrial disputes, leave with pay, hours of working and minimum wages.

5. Section 2(b) defines “newspaper” which means any printed periodical work containing public news or comments on public news and includes such other class of printed periodical work as may, from time to time, be notified in this behalf by Central Government in the Official Gazette. Section 2(c) defines “newspaper employee” which not only means working journalists but also includes any other person employed to do any work in, or in relation to, any newspaper establishment.

6. Section 2(dd) was inserted by Act No. 60 of 1974 which defines “non-journalist newspaper employees” which covers person employed to do any work in, or in relation to, any newspaper establishment, but does not include a working journalist or other employees employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity or in a supervisory capacity.

7. “Working journalists” have been defined in Section 2(f) which means persons whose principal avocation is that of journalist and also includes an editor, a letter-writer, news-editor, sub-editor, feature-writer, copy-tester, reporter, correspondent, cartoonists, news-photographer and proof-reader. Section 3 of Chapter II provides that provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘Act of 1947’) shall be subject to modification specified in sub-section (2), apply to, or in relation to, working journalists as they apply to, or in relation to workmen within the meaning of that Act.

8. Section 9 provides for the procedure for fixing and revising rates of wages in respect of working journalists by Wage Board constituted by Central Government. The recommendation made by Wage Board accepted by Central Government are notified under Section 12 of the Act. Section 13 thereafter provides that working journalists will be entitled to wages at the rate not less than those specified in the order on coming into operation of an order of Central Government under Section 12.

9. Chapter II-A deals with non-journalist newspaper employees. Section 13-B provides for fixation or rev

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top