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
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
ABP (Private Ltd.) vs. Union of India
Pradhan Prabandhank/Unit Head M/s. Amar Ujala vs. State of U.P. and others
Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd. Jagatganj Varanasi vs. State of U.P. and others
Ficus Pax (P) Ltd. v. Union of India
Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar
Awaz Prakashan (P) Ltd. v. Pramod Kumar Pujari
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. Anil
P. Virudhachalam v. Lotus Mills
Nelson Motis v. Union of India
Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. v. Vemuganti Ramakrishan Rao
Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra
Samyuktha Karnataka vs. M.L. Satyanarayana Rao and another
Samarjit Ghosh v. Bennet Coleman and Co. and others
The Management of Samyutha Karnataka v. M.L. Satyanarayana Rao and another
Rajan Sandhi P. v. Union of India & another
Novttis India Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and others
State of U.P. and others v. Committee of Management D.A.V. Inter College and another
AI
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the lack of power of delegation conferred on the State Government under Section 17(2) of the Act of 1955, rendering the References made by the Assi....
The state government has the authority to refer wage disputes to the Labour Court under Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists Act, providing a valid mechanism for individual claims despite jurisdi....
Under Section 17(2) of the Act of 1972 which mandates that if any question arises as regards the amount due, it is the duty of the State Government either on an application or by itself to refer it t....
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 employe....
The State Government has authority to refer disputes involving non-journalist employees under the Industrial Disputes Act, validating such references under Section 4K of the State Act.
Section 17(2) Labour Court can determine incidental questions of category, cadre and nature of work while computing benefits due under notified wage board recommendations.
The court affirmed that the Labour Courts in Delhi have jurisdiction for disputes arising from the Majithia Wage Board recommendations based on combined cause of action and situs tests, emphasizing e....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.