Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J
SUDHIR BHASKARRAO JAGADALE – Appellant
Versus
M/S D. B. CORP LIMITED THROUGH ITS HEAD OF HUMANE RESCORES – Respondent
WP 10774/2022
The delegation of powers to make reference under Section 17(2) of the Act of 1955 is impermissible, rendering such references invalid.
Headnote:(A) The Working Journalists and Other Newspapers Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 - Section 17 - Delegation of powers to make Reference - The court struck down the notification delegating powers to the Additional Commissioner of Labour to make reference under Section 17(2) of the Act, as such delegation is not permitted under the Act. (Paras 11-12, 24-26)
(B) Jurisdictional Question - The court held that the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage, even if not previously pleaded, as it goes to the root of the matter. (Paras 31-32)
(C) Delay in Filing - The court found that while some petitions were filed after a delay, it was not appropriate to segregate them based on filing dates as the issues were common. (Para 32)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the Labour Court's award regarding wage discrepancies as per the Majithia Wage Board recommendations, claiming the reference was invalid due to lack of jurisdiction.
Findings of Court:
The court held that references made by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour were invalid due to improper delegation of authority.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the delegation of powers under Section 17(2) and the maintainability of references made by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the State Government cannot delegate its power to make references under Section 17(2) of the Act, rendering the references made by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour invalid.
Result: Writ petitions allowed; awards set aside.
JUDGMENT:-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the con- sent of the parties, matters are taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.
2. In these group of petitions petitioners challenge the award dated 04.01.2019 passed by the Member, Labour Court, Aurangabad in Reference IDA No.20/2017 as well as order dated 10.06.2019 rejecting Review Petition No.09/2019. By amending petitions, the order dated 14.09.2022 passed by the Additional Tahsildar, Aurangabad seeking enforcement of the awards has also been challenged.
3. Petitioner is a private limited company engaged in multi-ferrous business activities in the areas of Radio, Media (print and electronics), Textile, Real Estate etc. Petitioner claims to be one of the largest print media groups in the country with 65 newspaper editions published in 4 languages having readership of 4.4 crores across 13 States. Its annual revenues have been described in one of the litigations as more than Rs.1000/- crores.
4. Respondents in these petitions have been appointed by petitioners on various posts. For the purpose of illustration, the details of appointment of respondent no.2 in Writ Petition No.4859/2022 are discussed. Respondent no.2 was offered an appointment by petitioners on the post of Telephone Operator on 10.06.2011. Upon acceptance of an offer, appointment order came to be issued in favour of respondent no.2 on 12.06.2011 appointing him as Telephone Operator with effect from 13.06.2011. The salary package offered to respondent no.2 was in the form of Cost to Company (CTC) package of Rs.1,08,000/- per annum.
5. The Working Journalists and Other Newspapers Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act of 1955’) has been enacted to regulate the conditions of employment of working journalists and other newspaper employees in pursuance of recommendations of Press Commission. Section 9 of the Act of 1955 provides for fixation of wages and revision thereof in respect of working journalists by the Central Government. Section 13-C of the Act of 1955 provides for fixation and revision of wages in respect of non-journalist newspaper employees. The Government of India constituted two Wage Boards under the provisions of Sections 9 and 13-C of the Act of 1955 by Notification dated 24.05.2007. The Wage Boards submitted their recommendations to the Central Government on 31.05.2010. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 12 of the Act of 1955 the Central Government issued Notification dated 11.11.2011 for implementation of recommendations of Wage Boards in respect of working journalists and non-journalist newspapers employees. The recommendations of Wage Boards implemented by the Notification dated 11.11.2011 are popularly known as recommendations of ‘Majithia Wage Board’.
6. Clause 20(j) of the Notification dated 11.11.2011 provides for exercise of option by an employee to retain existing emoluments within three weeks of publication of the Notification dated 11.11.2011. It is the case of petitioners that the respective employees in the present petitions executed such options in the form of declarations under Clause 20(j) of the Notification and thereby opted for retention of existing emoluments.
7. Applications were filed on 18.01.2017 by employees in the present petitions before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Aurangabad under Section 17(1) of the Act of 1955 claiming benefits under the Majithia Wage Board recommendations. The Assistant Labour Commissioner took cognizance of the application dated 18.01.2017 and made References to the Labour Court, Aurangabad for adjudication under the provisions of Section 17(2) of the Act of 1955.
8. Upon Reference being made to the Labour Court, the employees filed their statements of claim claiming differences of arrears of salary as per Notification dated 11.11.2011. The claims are resisted by petitioners by filing written statement raising various defences. The Labour Court made award dated 04.01.20
