# M/s Jagran Prakashan Ltd v. Shri Amar Kumar Singh & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 1181
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-27
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 10419 of 2023
- **Bench:** Pankaj Bhatia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-jagran-prakashan-ltd-v-shri-amar-kumar-singh-ors-50158
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

A. Labour law - Working Journalists and
Other Newspaper Employees (Condition of
Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,
1955 - Sections 2(d), 9, 13, 13-A, 13-C &
16 - Wages, emoluments & ors. benefits -
Entitlement of Non-journalist newspaper
employees - Not extending the other
benefits, which is provided to working
Journalists,
to
the
Non-journalist
newspaper
employees
-
Legality
challenged - Enforceability of agreement,
extent of - Held, on a conjoint reading of
Section 13 and 16 of the Act, it is clear
that any agreement or contract of service,
inconsistent with the provisions of law will
not govern the rights in between the
parties - The benefits that flow from the
Act, namely 'wages' as defined under the
Act, can be modified by an agreement only
if the same are better than the one
prescribed under the Act and in no case,
any
agreement
which
prescribes the
benefits of wages or emoluments less
than the one notified and prescribed by
the Board is barred by virtue of Section 13
of the Act. (Para 27, 28 and 29)

B. Interpretation of Statute - Rules of
Harmonious Construction - Applicability -
Socio beneficial legislation - It's manner
of interpretation - The Act, a piece of
socio beneficial legislation enacted with a
view
to
give
reasonable
working
conditions
to
the
employees
of
the
newspaper establishment, needs to be
interpreted in a manner, which leads to
achieve the purpose for which the Act was
enacted. (Para 31 and 32)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. M/s Jagran Prakashan Ltd. Vs. Shri Amar Kumar Singh & Ors.
1181

24. Respondent no.2 is directed to
remove the electricity line in question
pursuant
to
their
own
decision,
expeditiously,
preferably
within
three
months from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order, without
demanding any amount from the petitioners
or
other
affected
persons
towards
removal/shifting charges of the electricity
line in question. Liberty is granted to the
petitioners to apply before the respondent
No.3 for refund of the amount in terms of
this judgment.

25. With the aforesaid directions, the
writ petition is allowed to the extent
indicated above.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1181
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ-C No. 10419 of 2023
and
Writ-C No. 23212 of 2021

M/s Jagran Prakashan Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
Shri Amar Kumar Singh & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Chandra Bhan Gupta, Sri Sanjay Kaushal (Sr.
Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Man Mohan Singh, Sri Nikhil Agarwal

A. Labour law - Working Journalists and
Other Newspaper Employees (Condition of
Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,
1955 - Sections 2(d), 9, 13, 13-A, 13-C &
16 - Wages, emoluments & ors. benefits -
Entitlement of Non-journalist newspaper
employees - Not extending the other
benefits, which is provided to working
Journalists,
to
the
Non-journalist
newspaper
employees
-
Legality
challenged - Enforceability of agreement,
extent of - Held, on a conjoint reading of
Section 13 and 16 of the Act, it is clear
that any agreement or contract of service,
inconsistent with the provisions of law will
not govern the rights in between the
parties - The benefits that flow from the
Act, namely 'wages' as defined under the
Act, can be modified by an agreement only
if the same are better than the one
prescribed under the Act and in no case,
any
agreement
which
prescribes the
benefits of wages or emoluments less
than the one notified and prescribed by
the Board is barred by virtue of Section 13
of the Act. (Para 27, 28 and 29)

B. Interpretation of Statute - Rules of
Harmonious Construction - Applicability -
Socio beneficial legislation - It's manner
of interpretation - The Act, a piece of
socio beneficial legislation enacted with a
view
to
give
reasonable
working
conditions
to
the
employees
of
the
newspaper establishment, needs to be
interpreted in a manner, which leads to
achieve the purpose for which the Act was
enacted. (Para 31 and 32)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1.
Kasturi
and
Sons
(Pvt.)
Ltd.
Vs
Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507

2. Abp Pvt. Ltd. Vs U.O.I. & ors.; (2014) 3 SCC
327

3. Avishek Raja Vs Sanjay Gupta (2017) 8 SCC 435

4. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/S.
Hindustan Bulk Carriers; (2003) 3 SCC 57

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. After hearing the matter, this Court
had called for the records of Writ-C
1182 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
No.23212 of 2021. As the issue raised in
both the writ petitions is common, both the
writ petitions are being decided by means
of this common order. For the sake of
brevity, Writ-C No.10149 of 2023 is being
decided as a leading case.

2. The present petition has been filed
challenging the orders dated 11.10.2022,
07.11.2022 and 04.01.2023 whereby total
of 57 references have been consolidated
and decided.

3. The facts, in brief, are that the
petitioner is a newspaper establishment as
defined under section 2(d) of the Working
Journalists
and
Other
Newspaper
Employees (Condition of Service) and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (herein
after referred to as 'WJ Act'). The petitioner
is situated at Noida and is engaged in the
business of printing of newspaper in the
name and style of 'Dainik Jagran'. In
addition to the said, the petitioner is also
engaged in the news through electronic
media and website etc.

4. It is claimed that the respondent
no.1 of Writ Petition No.10419 of 2023
was appointed on the post of Dispatcher on
probation basis w.e.f. 01.11.2007 with the
petitioner. Similarly the other claimants in
the fifty six references were also employed
in a similar capacity.

5. It is argued that the Central
Government in compliance of the mandate
of the 'WJ Act', constituted two Wage
Boards for journalist and non-journalist
employees under section 9 and 13-C of the
'WJ Act'. The said wage boards gave its
recommendations which were notified by
the Central Government on 11.11.2011. It
is argued that the recommendations so
made by the Majithia Wage Board
(hereinafter referred to as 'Wage Board')
were challenged along with the vires of the
Act of 1955, which was decided by the
Supreme
Court
vide
order
dated
07.02.2014. It is argued that in terms of the
recommendations made by the Wage
Board,
para
20-J
of
the
said
recommendations specifically provided as
under :

20(J) The revised pay scales shall
become applicable to all employees with
effect from the 1st of July 2010. However, if
an employee within three weeks from the
date of publication of the Government
Notification u/s 12 of the Act enforcing
these recommendations exercises his / her
option for retaining his existing pay scales
and existing emoluments, he/she shall be
entitled to retain his / her existing scales
and such emoluments".

6. It is argued that as no alternation
was made by the Central Government to
the recommendations of the Wage Board,
as such the provision of Clause 20(J) also
stood notified. It is argued that in terms of
the
mandate
of
para
20(J)
of
the
recommendations as notified by the Central
Government, the respondent no.1 along
with other persons, who are covered in the
awards, gave an option to retain the
existing wages and existing emoluments
through a voluntary undertaking. It is
argued that despite giving an undertaking
in terms of the clause 20(J) of the Wage
Board, the respondent no.1 with a group of
198 persons filed a claim under section
17(1) of the Act before the office of the
Deputy Labour Commissioner, New Delhi.
As the issue of jurisdiction arose finally, in
terms of the order of the High Court, Delhi
passed in Writ Petition No.5606 of 2016,
the matters were relegated to be agitated
before the authorities at Noida and
5 All. M/s Jagran Prakashan Ltd. Vs. Shri Amar Kumar Singh & Ors.
1183
thereafter a fresh applications under section
17(1) were filed before the Deputy Labour
Commissioner,
Noida
on
01.02.2018
claiming an amount of Rs.36,28,430/- in
respect of the respondent no.1 (Annexure
no.7). Similar applications were filed by
the other employees also. The petitioner
filed their reply / objection to the said
applications
under
section
17(1)
on
17.04.2018 (in respect of opposite party
no.1).

7. The petitioners filed their objection
to the application filed by the employees
and denied their liability to pay any
amounts mainly on the foundation of clause
20 (j) of the Wage Board read with
voluntary undertaking by the employees. It
was also objected that without decision on
dispute as provided under Section 17(2)no
orders could be passed under Section 17.

8. It is argued that the Assistant
Labour Commissioner (Noida) made a
reference dated 07.08.2018 by framing two
issues (Annexure no.10). In response to the
summons from the Labour Court, the
petitioner put in appearance and the matter
was adjourned to 01.11.2018 on which
date, the petitioners filed their preliminary
submissions and both the parties have
exchanged their pleadings. It is on record
that on 26.08.2019, two issues were framed
with regard to the maintainability and the
jurisdiction to the following effect :

i. Whether this Hon'ble Court has
jurisdiction to adjudicate the present issues
of Industrial Dispute, particularly in
context of issue No.2 if so, its effect ?

ii. Whether the claimant had exercised
his option to retain existing pay scale and
existing emoluments and has given his
undertaking under para 20(J) of the
Majithia Wage Board Recommendations,
notified vide notification No. SO532, dated
11.11.2011 of Central Government, as
alleged. If so, its effect ?

9. It is argued that on the next date
fixed in the matter i.e. 06.07.2021, all the
similar matters were consolidated. The
petitioner filed an application seeking recall
of the order of consolidation mainly on the
ground that all the claims were different on
facts and could not be consolidated. It is on
record that the Labour Court had earlier
decided the issue of jurisdiction in a
leading case being ADJ Case No.584 of
2018 on 02.03.2021 and vide order dated
16.07.2021 decided the issue no.1 framed
by the Labour Court on jurisdiction and
followed the order dated 02.03.2021. It is
argued
that
in
all
62
cases
were
consolidated and in the leading case being
case no 584 of 2018, an order was passed
on 01.07.2021. The petitioners challenged
the order dated 02.03.2021 whereby the
preliminary issue was decided in ADJ Case
No.584 of 2018 by filing a Writ Petition
No.23212 of 2021. This court vide order
dated 17.09.2021 stayed the proceedings of
Case No.584 of 2018 mainly placing the
reliance on the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the Case of Kasturi and Sons
(Private) Ltd. v. Salivateswaran, AIR
1958 SC 507. As the cases were
consolidated by the Assistant Labour
Commissioner, the petitioner moved an
application bringing on record the said
order passed by this court and requested
that
the
other
cases
which
were
consolidated with the leading case no.584
of 2018 may also be adjourned, as the issue
was subjudice before the High Court. The
said adjournment application was rejected
with a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand)
vide order dated 06.06.2022 and proceeded
to hear the matter. The Assistant Labour
Commissioner vide order dated 11.10.2022
1184 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
decided all the fifty seven pending cases.
Challenging the said order, the present writ
petition has been filed.

10. Heard Sri Sanjay Kaushal, Senior
Advocate, assisted by Sri Chandra Bhan
Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Sri Man Mohan Singh and Sri Nikhil
Agarwal the counsel for the respondents.

11. The counsel for the petitioner
argues that the order impugned in the
present writ petition is bad in law for the
reasons more than one. He firstly argues
that in view of an order passed by this court
in the leading case, the labour court has
erred in deciding the cases when the
preliminary issue was subjudice before the
court.
He
next
argues
that
the
employees/respondent no.1 had given an
undertaking
accepting
the
option
of
retaining the existing pay-scale and existing
emoluments in terms of the mandate of
Clause 20(J) of the Wage Board and thus,
they could not have raised a claim by filing
an application under section 17 of the Act.

12. The learned Senior Advocate
argues that benefits of service is much
broader concept and includes within its
sweep a whole array of benefits which are
other than wages and emoluments, for
example, the benefits of working in a
particular area, etc.

13. During the course of arguments,
learned Senior Advocate has taken me
through the statements given by the
management
witnesses
and
cross
examination to argue that it was well
established that the respondents and the
other
similarly
placed
persons
had
voluntary
accepted
for
retaining
the
existing pay-scale, existing emoluments
and benefits of service under Clause 20(J)
of the Wage Board and thus, in view of the
overwhelming evidence on record, the
labour court has erred in granting the relief
by means of the impugned order. He
further argues that after the decision in
respect of the challenge before the Supreme
Court, a contempt petition was filed before
the Supreme Court and in the said contempt
petition, a status report was forwarded,
which indicated that most of the persons
had accepted the existing emoluments in
furtherance of Clause 20(J) of the Wage
Board.

14. The counsel for the petitioner
draws my attention to the option exercised
by
the
respondents
including
the
respondent no.1. He further argues that
along with the claim made by the
respondent no.1, they also claimed the
benefits of interim wages in terms of the
mandate of Section 13-A for the period
prior to the recommendations made by the
Wage
Board
without
clarifying
and
quantifying the claims. He draws my
attention to the mandatory provisions of the
Act and in particular relies on Section 17 to
argue that the claim under section 17 can
be
made
by
filing
an
appropriate
application, however, if any dispute arise,
the same is to be referred to by the labour
court under section 17(2) of the Act, which
is to decide, being an issue of fact,after
following the process of law and after
looking into the evidence and the gist of the
cross examination, which according to the
petitioner, has not been done in the manner
in which the labour court has decided the
issue. He argues that the issue with regard
to undertaking in terms of mandatory
clause contained in Clause 20(J) is
sacrosanct and binding in between the party
and once the said option has been
exercised, it is not open to the employee to
take recourse to Section 17 of the Act.
5 All. M/s Jagran Prakashan Ltd. Vs. Shri Amar Kumar Singh & Ors.
1185

15. The counsel for the petitioner
further argues that the labour court has
erred
in
treating
the
newspaper
establishment, which is specifically defined
under section 2(d) of the Act, as the
company and based upon the documents
downloaded from the internet with regard
to financial position of the company, it has
treated the financial data of the company to
be that of the newspaper establishment and
thus, has erred in passing the order treating
the newspaper establishment in category-I
solely based upon the gross revenue of the
company and ignoring the revenue of the
newspaper
establishment
which
is
a
separate and distinct from the Company.
He argues that although the newspaper
establishment i.e. the petitioner works
under one umbrella company, there is a
distinction between the company and the
establishment.

16. Sri Nikhil Agarawal appearing on
behalf of the respondents, on the other
hand, argues that this Court while passing
the order in Writ Petition had only stayed
the further proceedings of ADJ Case
No.584 of 2018 and thus, no error of law
has been committed by the Assistant
Labour Commissioner in deciding the other
cases. He argues after the rejection of the
adjournment application, the petitioner had
the right to approach this Court for
extending the scope of the stay order dated
17.09.2021 to the other cases also, which,
for the reasons best known to the petitioner
was not done. He argues that the issue with
regard to the applicability of Clause 20(J)
of the Wage Board, should be interpreted
by this Court by keeping in view the
provisions of the Act and specifically
Section 16 of the Act. He argues that once
the challenge to the award in Writ Petition
filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India was dismissed on 07.12.2014 in Abp
Private Limited vs. Union of Indian and
others; (2014) 3 SCC 327, the scope and
intent of the Act had to be made applicable.
He further argues that while dismissing the
writ petition, the Supreme Court itself
directed
that
the
wages
as
revised/determined shall be payable from
11.11.2021,
the
date
when
the
recommendations of the Board were
notified along with the arrears up to March
2014 in four equal instalments within a
period of one year, whereas the respondents
failed to do so.

17. He next argues that the reliance
made in respect of the observations in the
contempt petition (Avishek Raja vs Sanjay
Gupta (2017) 8 SCC 435 ), can be of no
avail to the petitioner as the Supreme Court
itself records in paragraph no.24 that the
issue is not being decided.

18. In reply to the contention of the
counsel for the petitioner with regard to
definition of newspaper establishment, he
argues that in terms of the definition of
section 2(d) and clarified under clause 11
of the Wage Board read with the schedule
to the Act, the arguments of the counsel for
the petitioner deserves to be rejected. He
further argues that in any event, the labour
court has not erred in downloading the
revenue of the company as the petitioner
never submitted any papers to be contrary
before the labour court. He further argues
that in case, the argument of the petitioner
are accepted, the whole purpose of the
enactment
of
the
Act
would
stand
frustrated. He argues that clause 20(J) of
the Wage Board Act has to be read
harmoniously with Section 13 and 16 of the
Act, which specifically bars that in no
situation, the wages of the newspaper
employee could be lesser than Board
recommendation as approved by the
1186 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Central Government in terms of the Section
12 of the Act. He further argues that the
argument of the counsel for the petitioner
in respect of the power under section 17(1)
and 17(2) of the Act are liable to be
rejected inasmuch as the Supreme Court
itself
had
clarified
that
the
nonimplementation of the recommendations of
the wage board have to be dealt with in
terms of the mandate of Section 17 of the
Act. In support of the said submissions, he
places reliance on the judgment of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ
Petition No.18372 of 2018 .

19. In view of the submissions made
and recorded above between the parties,
what emerges is that the sheet anchor of the
argument of the petitioner is that once
Clause 20(J) of the Wage Board is in
existence and has been notified as such,
any claim over and above the undertaking
given by the employees would not be
maintainable. I propose to decide this issue
prior to going into the other issues in
respect of the manner of decision making,
as argued by the counsel for the petitioner.

20. The 1955 Act, although now
repealed by virtue of the Occupational
Safety, Health and Working Conditions
Code, 2020 by virtue of Section 143(2) of
the Code, 2020 would continue to deal with
the obligations flowing from the said Act.
Brief legislative history of the WJ Act is
that the said Act was enacted in the year
1955 being Act No.45 of 1955 on 20th
December, 1955 with the object of
providing
benefits
to
the
working
journalists working with the newspaper
establishment. The benefit as contemplated
under the Act included the benefits as
specified under Sections 4 to 13 and 13-A.
Subsequently, the Act was amended by
virtue of Amending Act No.70 of 1974
whereby for the first time, the Central
Government amended the Act to bring
within its fold the benefit that could flow in
favour of the non-working journalists
employee of a newspaper establishment.
The amending Act did not extend all the
benefits which were provided for in the
1955 Act in respect of the working
journalists
under
the
newspaper
establishment and confined the benefits
which could flow in favour of the nonworking journalists to the extent as
specified under Chapter-2A. Thus, a clear
cleavage in the Act exists in between the
benefits that flow in favour of the working
journalists and ones that flow in favour of
the non journalists employees of the
newspapers establishment. A reading of
Chapter-2-A clearly demonstrates that the
benefits extended for the non-working
journalists include the benefit of fixation or
revision of rate of wages through the
constitution of a Board for determining the
wages in respect of the non journalists
newspaper employee. The other benefits
such as the ones enumerated under Sections
4, 5, 5A, 6 and 7 to 9 were not extended to
the non-journalists newspaper employees.

21. Section 2-A defines the Board to
mean a Board constituted under section 9 in
relation to working journalist and Wage
Board constituted under section 13-C in
respect of employees who are working as
non-journalist newspaper employees. In the
present case, we are concerned with the
recommendations of the Wage Board in
respect of the non-journalist newspaper
employees.

22. Section 2(d) defines 'newspaper
establishment' as under :

"(d) "newspaper establishment" means
an establishment under the control of any
5 All. M/s Jagran Prakashan Ltd. Vs. Shri Amar Kumar Singh & Ors.
1187
person or body of persons, whether
incorporated or not, for the production or
publication of one or more newspapers or
for conducting any news agency or
syndicate;
4[and
includes
newspaper
establishments
specified
as
one
establishment
under
the
Schedule.
Explanation. For the purposes of this
clause,-

(a) different departments, branches
and centres of newspaper establishments
shall be treated as parts thereof;

(b) a printing press shall be deemed to
be a newspaper establishment if the
principal business thereof is to print
newspaper;

The schedule to the Act further
clarifies
as
to
how
the
'newspaper
establishment' under the common control
are
to
be
treated
as
'newspaper
establishment' defined under the Act.

23. Section 2(eee) defines 'wages' as
under :

(eee) "wages" means all remuneration
capable of being expressed in terms of
money, which would, if the terms of
employment, expressed or implied, were
fulfilled, be payable to a newspaper
employee in respect of his employment or
of work done in such employment, and
includes-

(i)
such
allowances
(including
dearness allowance) as the newspaper
employee is for the time being entitled to;

(ii)
the
value
of
any
house
accommodation, or of supply of light,
water, medical attendance or other amenity
or of any service or of any concessional
supply of food-grains or other articles;

(iii) any travelling concession,

but does not include-

(a) any bonus;

(b) any contribution paid or payable
by the employer to any pension fund or
provident fund or for the benefit of the
newspaper employee under any law for the
time being in force;

(c) any gratuity payable on the
termination of his service.

Explanation. In this clause, the term
"wages" shall also include new allowances,
if any, of any description fixed from time to
time."

24. Section 13-C, mandates for
constitution of the Wage Board in respect
of non-journalist newspaper employees by
the Central Government comprising of the
persons specified under section 13-C. By
virtue of Section 13-D, the provisions of
Section 10 to Section 13-A have been made
applicable to and in relation to, the Board
constituted under section 13-C. Section 12
confers
the
power
on
the
Central
Government
to
enforce
the
recommendations
of
a
Wage
Board
constituted under section 13-C of the Act.
Section 13, of the Act which is applicable
to the non-journalist newspaper employees
by virtue of Section 13-D, provides as
under :

13. Working journalists entitled to
wages at rates not less than those specified
in the order - On the coming into operation
of an order of the Central Government
under Section 12, every working journalist
shall be entitled to be paid by his employer
wages at the rate which shall in no case be
less than the rate of wages specified in the
order.

25. Section 13-A, which is also
applicable to the non-journalist newspaper
employees confers the power on the
Government to fix the interim wages till the
1188 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
recommendations of the Wage Board are
notified under section 12 of the Act.

26. It is essential to note that Section
16 of the Act further clarifies the situation
in
respect
of
laws
and
agreements
inconsistent with this Act. Section 16 is
quoted herein below :

16. Effect of laws and agreements
inconsistent
with
this
Act.-(1)
The
provisions of this Act shall have effect
notwithstanding
anything
inconsistent
therewith contained in any other law or in
the terms of any award, agreement or
contract of service, whether made before or
after the commencement of this Act:

Provided that where under any such
award, agreement, contract of service or
otherwise,
a
newspaper
employee
is
entitled to benefits in respect of any matter
which are more favourable to him than
those to which he would be entitled under
this Act the newspaper employee shall
continue to be entitled to the more
favourable benefits in respect of that
matter, notwithstanding that he receives
benefits in respect of other matters under
this Act.

(2) Nothing contained in this Act shall
be construed to preclude any newspaper
employee from entering into an agreement
with an employer for granting him rights or
privileges in respect of any matter which
are more favourable to him than those to
which he would be entitled under this Act.

27. It is essential to note as to what
benefits flow in favour of non-journalist
newspaper employees, by virtue of the Act,
they are 'wages' alone as Chapter II-A
inserted by amending Act no.60 of 1974
only gives the protection of wages, the
other benefits which flow from section 4, 5,
6 and 7 in favour of working journalists
have not been extended to non-journalist
newspaper employees.

28. On a conjoint reading of Section
13 and 16 of the Act, it is clear that any
agreement
or
contract
of
service,
inconsistent with the provisions of law will
not govern the rights in between the parties.
In fact, the proviso to Section 16(1)
specifically clarifies that the terms and
conditions which are more favourable,
would continue to govern the entitlement of
the
employees
of
the
newspaper
establishment. The intent is further clarified
by virtue of Section 16(2) which confers a
power on the employee to enter into an
agreement for granting him rights or
privileges in respect of any matter which
are more favourable to the employee than
the one as prescribed under the Act.

29. On a harmonious consideration of
the two provisions of Section 13 and 16 of
the Act, in respect of non journalist
employees,the inescapable conclusion is
that the benefits that flow from the Act,
namely 'wages' as defined under the Act,
can be modified by an agreement only if
the same are better than the one prescribed
under the Act and in no case, any
agreement which prescribes the benefits of
wages or emoluments less than the one
notified and prescribed by the Board is
barred by virtue of Section 13 of the Act. In
fact the provisions of the Majithia Wage
Board itself clarified the meaning of a word
'existing emoluments' in the explanation to
Clause 20, which reads as under :

j. The revised pay-scales shall become
applicable to all employees with effect from
1st July 2010. However, if an employee
within three weeks from the date of
publication of Government Notification
under Section 12 of the Act enforcing these
5 All. M/s Jagran Prakashan Ltd. Vs. Shri Amar Kumar Singh & Ors.
1189
recommendations exercises his option for
retaining his existing pay scale and
"existing emoluments", he shall be entitled
to retain his existing scale and such
emoluments.

Explanation :

(1) The "existing emoluments of an
employee shall mean his basic pay,
variable dearness allowance at the All
India average Consumer Price Index
Number for Industrial Workers (Base 2001100) at 167 during the period July 2009 to
June 2010, convertible to CPI-IW (Base
1982-100) by the conversion factor of 4.53,
and interim relief of 30% of basic pay
sanctioned vide notifications 5.0, No. 2524
(E) and 2525 (E) dated 25 August 2008 as
applicable for working journalists and nonjournalists
newspaper
employee
respectively.

(2) The additional emoluments" of an
employee shall mean emoluments other
than the "existing emoluments" described
in Clause (1) granted by newspaper
establishments, as a result of collective
bargaining, agreement or award, as
increase in basic wage, dearess allowance
or interim relief.

(3) The "additional allowances" of an
employee
shall
mean
any
monthly
payments, by whatever name called, not
related to a specific purpose nor agreed to
be adjusted against any revision of pay or
dearness allowance."

30. The argument of the counsel for
the petitioner is that once the respondents
have accepted the wages, emoluments and
benefits as were existing by giving an
undertaking, they are precluded from
raising a claim under section 17 of the Act,
merits rejection for the sole reason that the
Clause 20(J) of the Wage Board has to be
read in context with the explanation under
Clause 20(J) read with Section 13 and
Section 16 of the Act.

31. It is well settled that the Act , a
piece of socio beneficial legislation enacted
with a view to give reasonable working
conditions to the employees of the
newspaper establishment, needs to be
interpreted in a manner, which leads to
achieve the purpose for which the Act was
enacted. The provisions of Clause 20(J)
read with Section 13 and 16 have to be
interpreted harmoniously to ensure that
none of the provisions are rendered otiose.

32.

The
rule
of
harmonious
construction, considered by the Supreme
Court in the leading case of Commissioner
Of Income Tax vs M/S. Hindustan Bulk
Carriers; (2003) 3 SCC 57 laid down the
principles as under :

14. A construction which reduces the
statute to a futility has to be avoided. A
statute or any enacting provision therein
must be so construed as to make it effective
and operative on the principle expressed in
the maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat
i.e. a liberal construction should be put
upon written instruments, so as to uphold
them, if possible, and carry into effect the
intention of the parties.

15.A statute is designed to be
workable and the interpretation thereof by
a court should be to secure that object
unless crucial omission or clear direction
makes that end unattainable.

16.The courts will have to reject that
construction which will defeat the plain
intention of the legislature even though
there may be some inexactitude in the
language used.

17.If the choice is between two
interpretations, the narrower of which
1190 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
would fail to achieve the manifest purpose
of the legislation, we should avoid a
construction which would reduce the
legislation to futility, and should rather
accept the bolder construction, based on
the view that Parliament would legislate
only for the purpose of bringing about an
effective result.

18.The statute must be read as a whole
and one provision of the Act should be
construed
with
reference
to
other
provisions in the same Act so as to make a
consistent enactment of the whole statute.

19.The court must ascertain the
intention of the legislature by directing its
attention not merely to the clauses to be
construed but to the entire statute; it must
compare the clause with other parts of the
law and the setting in which the clause to
be interpreted occurs. (SeeR.S. Raghunath
v. State of Karnataka [(1992) 1 SCC 335 :
1992 SCC (L&S) 286 : (1992) 19 ATC 507
: AIR 1992 SC 81] .) Such a construction
has the merit of avoiding any inconsistency
or repugnancy either within a section or
between
two
different
sections
or
provisions of the same statute. It is the duty
of the court to avoid a head-on clash
between two sections of the same Act.

20.Whenever it is possible to do so, it
must be done to construe the provisions
which appear to conflict so that they
harmonise. It should not be lightly assumed
that Parliament had given with one hand
what it took away with the other.

21.The provisions of one section of the
statute cannot be used to defeat those of
another unless it is impossible to effect
reconciliation between them. Thus a
construction that reduces one of the
provisions to a "useless lumber" or "dead
letter" is not a harmonised construction. To
harmonise is not to destroy."

33. The argument of the counsel for
the petitioner in the light of the provisions
of Clause 20(J), if accepted, would render
the entire Act inapplicable and if the said
argument is accepted, the same would be in
clear violation of the mandate of Section
12, 13, 13-C, 13-D and Section 16 of the
Act.

34. In the present case the grievances
raised under Section 17 by the employees
could be referred for adjudication under
Section 17(2) only in respect of disputes of
quantum of benefits as prescribed by the
wage board. The defence of the petitioner
that
the
undertaking
given
by
the
employees
would
override
the
recommendations of wage board could be
entertained only if it could be demonstrated
prima
facie
that
the
'wages
and
emoluments' (alone) being paid in terms of
undertaking, to the employees, were more
than the one prescribed and payable under
the notified recommendations of the wage
board. No such defence appears to be taken
by the Petitioners.

35. It is further inconceivable as to
why the employee would agitate for wages
and emoluments by instituting proceedings
under Section 17 if he was getting more
amounts than what was prescribed by the
wage board, it is equally inconceivable as
to why any news paper establishment
would contest such proceedings if they felt
that the wages and emoluments paid to an
employee under an agreement are more
than the recommendations of the board.

36. The only issue of dispute in
between the parties that is conceivable is
that if the category of the newspaper
establishment as prescribed by the wage
board, if wrongly determined, can lead to
adverse financial effect. In the present case
5 All. Smt. Sabita Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1191
the definition of news paper establishment
under the Act read with the explanation and
schedule to the Act leaves no room for
interpretation that it is the Petitioner
Company
which
is
the
'newspaper
establishment' for the purposes of this
matter. As there is no dispute that the
revenues of the petitioner company are
more than rupees one thousand crores, the
petitioner as 'newspaper establishment'
would
fall
under
Clause-I
of
the
classification
criteria
provided
under
Clause 6 of the Wage Board.

37. In view of the interpretation of the
provisions as recorded above and the facts
as narrated, I do not find any error in the
order passed by the authority being the
order dated 04.01.2023, both the writ
petitions lack merit and are dismissed.
Further steps shall be taken in respect of
claims which is subject matter in W.P.
No.23212 of 2021 expeditiously.

38. The cost of litigation as incurred
by the respondent, to be paid by the
petitioner
is
assessed
at
Rs.25,000/-
(Twenty Five Thousand), which shall be
paid by the petitioner company to the
respondent no.1 of Writ-C No.10419 of
2023.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1191
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Writ-C No. 30088 of 2022

Smt. Sabita Sharma & Ors. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Raj Narayan Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Alok Mishra, Sri Kaushlendra Nath
Singh

A. Acquisition Law
- Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24 (1)
(a) - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section
11
-
Compensation
-
Date
of
determination of market value - Whether
it would be the date of enforcement of the
Act of 2013, i.e. 1.1.2014 or the date of
publication of the notification u/s 4(1) of
the Act, 1894 - Making of award -
Relevance - Held, when no award has
been made u/s 11 of the Act, 1894, all the
provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013
relating
to
the
determination
of
compensation shall apply - In a case
where award u/s 11 had been made
before commencement of the RFCTLARR
Act, 2013, all subsequent proceedings
shall continue under the provisions of the
Act, 1894. (Para 16 and 17)

B. Acquisition Law
- Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 113 -
Award - Computation of compensation -
Date of determination of market value -
Direction issued by Central Govt., how far
binding on St. Govt. - Held, directions
issued by the Central Government being in
exercise of the power u/s 113 of the Act,
2013 have statutory force and are binding
on all the St. Government - In view of the
statutory character of the D.O. letter
dated 26th October, 2015, it is evident
that the reference date for calculation of
market value u/s 24(1)(a) should be
01.01.2014 - High Court issued direction
to re-determine the market value of land
as on 01.01.2024 by making fresh award.
(Para 21, 22, 25 and 29)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited: