HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD The Indian Express Pvt. Ltd.

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus Union Of India And 5 Others .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Devesh Tripathi, Sandeep Pandey, Sr.

Advocate Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Man Mohan Singh Court No. - 36 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sandeep Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Prabhakar Tripathi, who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.1, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 4 and Sri Man Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.6.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the reference order dated 29.9.2025 passed by respondent no.4 under Sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955.

3. It is contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that earlier the petitioner has raised a dispute, which was referred for adjudication under the aforesaid provisions of the Act, 1955, in which the reference was that as to whether the employee/workman was entitled for a sum of Rs.4,81,450/- under the Majithia Wage Board Award, if not, then to what amount he was entitled to. In the said reference, respondent no.6 has claimed to be Head Clerk in the petitioner company and had claimed dearness allowance, deduction of provident fund, gratuity etc., according to new Majithia Wage Board Award. Learned Senior Counsel has contended that in his cross-examination, the respondent no.6 had stated that he has staked the claim in Class-III, in respect of which the Majithia Wage Board Award has not been properly implemented. He has also drawn attention of the Court to the statement of respondent no.6 where he has stated that there is no dispute regarding fixation of basic pay, gratuity pay, HRA and travel expenses before this Court. My claim is with regard to variable pay, variable dearness allowance, milk allowance and medical allowance.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that in view of the aforesaid facts, the order of reference under challenge, which states that, "whether fixation of pay of Sri Nand Kishore Pathak w.e.f. 11.11.2011 in Group-4 (Admin) instead of Group-3 (Admin) was proper and legal, if not, what relief the workman is entitled to", is barred by principles of res judicata and the principles of Order II Rule 2 C.P.C. In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited and another Vs. General Secretary, Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Employees Association and others, reported in 2019 (11) SCC 323, which holds that the principles of res judicata defined in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applies to the labour proceedings. It has been further contended that as the respondent no.6 had not raised the issue of incorrect fixation of basic pay during the first reference, his subsequent challenge is barred by Explanation IV of Section 11 C.P.C., as the matter was directly and substantially in issue during the first reference.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.6, on the other hand, has opposed the contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and contended that unless an issue is considered and decided by the Labour Court, principles of res judicata would not be applicable. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a Coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in Writ-C No.54205 of 2010 (Vijay Chawla Vs. State of U.P. and others), decided on 14.9.2022.

6. The facts of the case relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent no.6 are distinguishable, as in the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent no.6, this Court while rejecting the review application of the employer in the writ petition filed challenging the awar