# The Indian Express Pvt. Ltd. A-8, Sector-7, Noida Gautambuddha Nagar v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 3 ILRA 244
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-02-21
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 659 of 2023
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-indian-express-pvt-ltd-a-8-sector-7-noida-gautambuddha-nagar-v-u-o-i-ors-49951
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Labour Law - Working Journalists and
other Newspaper Employees (Conditions
of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1955 - Section 17(1) - Recovery of
money due from an employer - Where any
amount is due to a newspaper employee
from
an
employer,
the
newspaper
employee may, make an application to the
State Government for the recovery of the
amount due to him - If any question arises
as to the amount due to a newspaper
employee from his employer, the State
Government may, refer the question to
Labour Court - The decision of the Labour
Court shall be forwarded by it to the State
Government and any amount found due by
the Labour Court may be recovered -
power
u/s
17(1)
of
Act,
1955
is
unambiguous - in case there is a dispute
with regard to determination of amount
the Prescribed Authority shall refer a
reference to Labour Court. (Para 10)
3 All. The Indian Express Pvt. Ltd. A-8, Sector-7, Noida Gautambuddha Nagar Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. 245
Labour Law - Working Journalists and
other Newspaper Employees (Conditions
of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1955 - Section 17(1) - Workmen of
petitioner-Company, i.e., Indian Express
Pvt. Ltd., claimed that they have provided
their services during Covid-19 pandemic
period
however,
employer
deducted
certain percentage of their monthly salary
- amount deducted was not in dispute - No
reason was afforded prior to deduction
and
no
prior
notice
was
issued
-
Controversy
before
the
Prescribed
Authority was whether or not employer
has power to deduct the amount as well
as whether or not deduction was legally
permissible - Held - Prescribed Authority
entered into arena of dispute to determine
legality of deduction, therefore, it has
acted beyond its jurisdiction u/s 17(1) of
Act, 1955 and committed legal error by
not making reference to Labour Court -
impugned
order
set
aside
and
the
Prescribed Authority directed to refer
dispute to Labour Court (Para 10)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

244 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
namely Kishun and signature of Jagganath
(Up-Pradhan) and thump impression of
Tulsiram (Panch), he put his signature over
the Will. Thus, Bachchu Lal cannot be
considered as an atttesting witness of the
Will. The statement of Bechan Lal before
the Consolidation Officer is also liable to
be disbelieved as this witness was not
intact.
This
witness
before
the
Consolidation Authority concerned stated
that the Will was written at 10 P.M.,
whereas, as per writer of Will namely Hari
Prasad, the Will was written on 26.06.1986
at 7 P.M. He also stated that the Will was
written in presence of one Bachchu Lal,
whereas,
Bachchu
Lal
during
corss
examination specifically stated that the Will
was not written in his presence. Bechan Lal
before the Authority concerned also stated
that the testator of Will namely Kishun
himself purchased the stamp for the Will,
however, the stamp paper itself speaks that
it was purchased by Ghuru, one of the
beneficiaries. Thus, the testimony of this
witness is not reliable and being so, the
observations
of
the
Consolidation
Authorities in the orders impugned are
justified and are not liable to be interfered
with by this Court.

35.
Having
considered
the
aforesaid as also the observations made
by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the
relevant provisions of the Act of 1925
and the Act of 1872, this Court finds
that the petitioners failed to prove the
Will before the Consolidation Officer,
as such, their claim based upon the Will
is not justified. Accordingly, this Court
is of the view that the findings recorded
by
the
Consolidation
Authorities
concerned in the orders impugned
herein are justified and are not liable to
be interfered with by this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

36. For the foregoing reasons, the writ
petition is dismissed.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 244
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ C No. 659 of 2023

The Indian Express Pvt. Ltd. A-8, Sector-7,
Noida Gautambuddha Nagar ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sunil Kumar Tripathi, Sri Devesh
Tripathi, Sri Sandeep Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Ankur Goyal, C.S.C., Sri
Ramesh Chandra Tiwari

Labour Law - Working Journalists and
other Newspaper Employees (Conditions
of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1955 - Section 17(1) - Recovery of
money due from an employer - Where any
amount is due to a newspaper employee
from
an
employer,
the
newspaper
employee may, make an application to the
State Government for the recovery of the
amount due to him - If any question arises
as to the amount due to a newspaper
employee from his employer, the State
Government may, refer the question to
Labour Court - The decision of the Labour
Court shall be forwarded by it to the State
Government and any amount found due by
the Labour Court may be recovered -
power
u/s
17(1)
of
Act,
1955
is
unambiguous - in case there is a dispute
with regard to determination of amount
the Prescribed Authority shall refer a
reference to Labour Court. (Para 10)
3 All. The Indian Express Pvt. Ltd. A-8, Sector-7, Noida Gautambuddha Nagar Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. 245
Labour Law - Working Journalists and
other Newspaper Employees (Conditions
of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1955 - Section 17(1) - Workmen of
petitioner-Company, i.e., Indian Express
Pvt. Ltd., claimed that they have provided
their services during Covid-19 pandemic
period
however,
employer
deducted
certain percentage of their monthly salary
- amount deducted was not in dispute - No
reason was afforded prior to deduction
and
no
prior
notice
was
issued
-
Controversy
before
the
Prescribed
Authority was whether or not employer
has power to deduct the amount as well
as whether or not deduction was legally
permissible - Held - Prescribed Authority
entered into arena of dispute to determine
legality of deduction, therefore, it has
acted beyond its jurisdiction u/s 17(1) of
Act, 1955 and committed legal error by
not making reference to Labour Court -
impugned
order
set
aside
and
the
Prescribed Authority directed to refer
dispute to Labour Court (Para 10)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ficus Fax Private Ltd. & ors. Vs U.O.I. &
ors.Writ Petition (C) Diary No. 10983 of 2020, dt
20.06.2020

2. Pradhan Prabandhak/Union head M/s Amar
Ujala vs. State of U.P. & ors.(Writ-C No. 11856
of 2018), decided on 31.05.2018.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1.

The
issue
which
requires
consideration in present case is, "whether
Prescribed
Authority
under
Working
Journalists and other Newspaper Employees
(Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to
as "Act, 1955") can consider a claim filed by
workmen under Section 17(1) of Act, 1955
despite the it being a disputed claim?"

2. Learned counsel for parties have not
seriously disputed the legal position with
regard to above referred issue that application
by a newspaper employees is to be filed
under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of Act,
1955 as per Rule 36 of Working Journalists
(Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous
Provisions Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred
to as "Rules, 1957"). That application can be
filed before State Government or such
authority, as the State Government may
specify in that behalf. Where there exists no
dispute, the State Government or authority, so
specified, upon being satisfied that any amount
is so due, shall issue a certificate for that
amount to Collector and Collector would,
thereafter, recover that amount as an arrears of
land revenue. Where a question or dispute
arises then a reference is to be made to Labour
Court for adjudication of dispute. After
adjudicating the dispute, Labour Court has to
forward its decision to State Government or
authority which made the reference, upon
which the amount is to be recovered in the
manner provided by sub-section (1) of Section
17 of Act, 1955. Since Section 17, as a whole,
creates a single seamless scheme, the State
Government, in exercise of its power under
sub-section (1) can specify an authority to do
all acts which it has power to do under Section
17 of Act, 1955.

3.

Respondents-workmen
of
petitioner-Company, i.e., Indian Express
Pvt. Ltd., have claimed that they have
provided their services even during period
in question, i.e., 01.04.2020 to 28.02.2021,
when the country was facing adverse
situation due to Covid-19 Pandemic,
however, still employer has deducted
certain percentage of their monthly salary
and since amount was pre-determined,
therefore,
Prescribed
Authority
under
Section 17(1) of Act, 1955 has jurisdiction
to allow claim.
246 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4. Sri Sunil Kumar Tripathi, learned
counsel for petitioner has vehemently
argued that it is not the question about
determination of amount deducted as there
is no dispute that said amount was
deducted.
Question
before
Prescribed
Authority was that when employer has
come up with a case that deduction was
legal and contrary to it respondentsworkmen have submitted that it was an
illegal deduction, therefore, a dispute arose
about legality of deduction, which could
not be decided by Prescribed Authority
under Section 17(1) of Act, 1955 and
correct procedure was to refer a reference
to Labour Court for adjudication of dispute.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner has
further submitted that petitioner has also
challenged notification dated 29.03.2020
issued by Ministry of Home Affairs, New
Delhi in exercise of powers conferred
under
Section
10(2)(I)
of
Disaster
Management Act,
2005
that
District
Magistrate shall take measures that all the
employees, be it in industry or in the shops
and commercial establishments, shall make
payment of wages of their workers, at their
work places, on due date, without any
deduction,
for
the
period
their
establishments are under closure during
lockdown.

6. Learned counsel has further
submitted that impugned notification is
arbitrary and without considering that
employer has suffered financial loss due to
irregular publication of newspapers and
magazines
during
lockdown
period,
therefore, they cannot be forced not to
deduct any salary. He, however, fairly
submitted that direction in impugned
notification was not considered either
directly or indirectly in impugned order.

7. Sri Ramesh Chandra Tiwari,
learned counsel for respondents-workmen,
also vehemently argued that workmen have
continuously worked even during the
period of lockdown and thereafter also and
ensured that publication may not be
discontinued and that newspapers were
published
and
circulated
effectively
initially through online mode and thereafter
by physical circulation. Period of deduction
of salary was beyond the lockdown period
also. No reason was afforded prior to
deduction and no prior notice was issued.
Amount was not disputed as well as
employer has not disputed that during
relevant period publication was regular and
in this regard he referred the finding
returned in impugned order. Learned
counsel also referred a gazette notification
dated 12.11.2014 that Prescribed Authority
has power to consider application filed
under Section 17(1) of Act, 1955. In
support of above submission learned
counsel has placed reliance on Supreme
Court's judgment in Ficus Fax Private
Ltd. and others vs. Union of India and
others (Writ Petition (C) Diary No.
10983 of 2020, decided on 20.06.2020 and
this
Court's
judgment
in
Pradhan
Prabandhak/ Uniot head M/s Amar
Ujala vs. State of U.P. and others (WritC No. 11856 of 2018), decided on
31.05.2018.

8. Heard learned counsel for parties
and perused the material available on
record.

9. As referred above, position of law
with regard to power under Section 17(1) of
Act, 1955 is unambiguous that in case there is
a dispute with regard to determination of
amount the Prescribed Authority shall refer a
reference to Labour Court.
3 All. Smt. Subodh Kanti Vs. Distt. Judge Unnao & Ors.
247

10. In the present case, it is not in
dispute that certain percentage of salary
was deducted for relevant period, therefore,
amount deducted was not in dispute.
However, since a controversy was arose
before Prescribed Authority that, whether
or not employer has power to deduct the
amount as well as whether or not deduction
was legally permissible and for that parties
before
Prescribed
Authority
have
exchanged pleadings and led oral evidence
also. Prescribed Authority has entered into
arena of disputed questions and considered
pleadings and oral evidence and recorded a
finding that since undisputedly publication
was regular and respondents-workmen
were
working
regularly,
therefore,
deduction was illegal or not permissible
and proceeded to pass order against
petitioner and in favour of respondentsworkmen. Since Prescribed Authority has
entered into arena of dispute to determine
legality of deduction, therefore, it has acted
beyond its jurisdiction provided under
Section 17(1) of Act, 1955 and committed
legal error by not making reference to
Labour Court.

11. Accordingly, impugned order
dated 07.12.2022 is hereby set aside.
Prescribed Authority is directed to refer
dispute to Labour Court within a period of
two weeks from today in accordance with
provisions
of
Act,
1955
for
its
determination. The Labour Court is also
directed to conclude proceedings within a
period of six months thereafter, subject to
other business of Court.

12. Petitioner-Employer is also at
liberty to have a meeting with respondentsworkmen,
who
have
supported
their
employer during Covid-19 Pandemic, to
settle the dispute with regard to deduction
of salary even beyond lockdown period and
if possible refund a proximate money to
them.

13. So far as challenge to notification
dated
29.03.2020
is
concerned,
no
reference was made during impugned
proceedings and there is no challenge to
power under which said notification was
issued. Nothing has been brought on record
that any adverse order has been passed in
pursuance of said notification. Accordingly,
prayer
to
quash
notification
dated
29.03.2020 is hereby rejected.

14.

With
aforesaid
directions/
observations the writ petition is disposed
of.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 247
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Writ C No. 1350 of 2023

Smt. Subodh Kanti ...Petitioner
Versus
Distt. Judge Unnao & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ashish Kumar Rastogi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Purusottam Awasthi, Ashish Kumar

A. Civil Law - U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947
- Section 12C - U.P. Panchayat Raj
(Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules,
1994 -
Election
Petition
-
issue
for
consideration - whether framing of issues
in an election petition is a sine qua non
prior to deciding an election petition ? -
Held - in an election petition filed under
Section 12C of the Act 1947 the issues are