A Labour Court must strictly adhere to the specific question for determination framed in a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act; deciding the general entitlement instead of the specific amount requested in the reference renders the award legally unsustainable.

Order on Board

24.04.2026

1. The facts in brief are that the Central Government while exercising power under Sections 9 and 13(C) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (for short Act, 1955) constituted a Board to recommend the pay scale and other admissible benefit to working journalists and non-journalists employees of newspaper establishment. The Central Government vide notification dated 24.10.2008 granted interim relief and directed for payment of 30% amount of basic pay. The Ministry of Labour, Government of India issued notifications on 24.10.2008 and 11.11.2011 under the provisions of Act of 1955 with respect to fixation of wages of employees working under newspaper establishments. Initially, petitioners were employees of Naidunia Media Limited, which got merged with the Jagran Prakashan Limited on 01.04.2012 and all the assets and liabilities were also merged and handed over to Jagran Prakashan Limited. When the respondent failed to extend benefits of notifications dated 24.10.2008 and 11.11.2011, applications were moved by the petitioners before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Raipur and reference was made vide order dated 13.12.2017 framing a question of determination, which reads as under :-

"आवेदकगण को श्रमजीवी पत्रकार तथा अन्य समाचार-पत्र कर्मचारी (सेवा-शर्तें) और प्र कीर्णउपबंध अधिनियम 1955 के अंतर्गत मजीठिया वेज बोर्ड की अनुसंशाओं के अनुसार कितनी राशि पाने की पात्रता है?"

2. The learned Labour Court registered the cases under the Industrial Dispute Act framed specific issue as to “Whether the petitioners are entitled to receive monetary benefits according to recommendation made by Majithia Wage Board or not ?” The reference was answered in negative against the petitioners and the awards passed by the learned Labour Court have been challenged in these writ petitions.

3. Mr. Vikas Dubey, Advocate appearing for the petitioners would argue that the question for determination according to reference was entirely different from the issue which has been considered and decided by the learned Labour Court, therefore, the awards passed by the learned Labour Court are bad in law and may be set-aside.

4. On the other hand, learned Advocates appearing for respondent would submit that the entitlement of revised benefits including pay scale is covered with the issue framed by the learned Labour Court and the contention made by Mr. Dubey is misconceived. He would contend that the learned Labour Court has considered question of determination framed by the competent Government and decided it against the petitioners. He would submit that as the petitioners are not entitled for any amount, therefore, there was no question to determine the amount according to the reference made by the competent Government.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

6. Perusal of the orders passed by the competent Government under Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act would make it clear that the learned Labour Court was directed to decide the amount payable to the petitinoers as per recommendation made by the Majithia Wage Board, whereas, the learned Labour Court decided entitlement of the petitioners, who are employees of the respondent newspaper establishment.

7. It is not in dispute that the learned Labour Court was directed to determine amount payable to the petitioners as per recommendation, but the learned Labour Court failed to consid