# The Indian Express Pvt. Ltd v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 1349
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-04-12
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 292 of 2024
- **Bench:** Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-indian-express-pvt-ltd-v-u-o-i-ors-51806
- **Pages:** 16

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Constituion of India,1950Article 226-Working Journalists and Other
Newspaper
Employees(Conditions
of
Service)
and
Miscellaneous
Provisions
Act,1955-Section
17-The
petitioners
contested
the
validity
of
the
state
government's
notification
authorizing
specific officers to handle dispute 17 of the
act,1955-the
Assistant
Labour
Commissioner referred disputes to the
Labour Court regarding short payments to
employees-Held, the notification delegating
power u/s 17 was upheld as it was
consistent with the seamless mechanism
envisaged by the act,1955-Section 17 was
found to provide an integrated framework
for resolving disputes and recovering duesThe Assistant labor commissioner's role in
referring disputes was valid-The Labour
Court's findings on short payment of wages
were not challenged on merits but only on
technical grounds, which were dismissedThe court clarified that the Labour Court's
decision under section 17(3) was not an
"award" requiring publication under the
Industrial
Disputes
Act-Hence,
the
notification, reference to Labour Court and
recovery orders were upheld-The court
emphasized the intent of the act 1955 to
safeguard the rights of journalists and
newspaper
employees,
especially
concerning
wage
disputes
through
an
effective recovery mechanism.(Para 1to 60)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,933 of 51,532. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39933 for what follows._

4 All. The Indian Express Pvt. Ltd. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1349
respondent No - 2 will not support his
argument.

14. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances as well as the ratio of law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of S. Saktivel (Dead) by L.Rs. (supra), the
impugned revisional order dated 10.7.2012,
passed by respondent no.1/Board of Revenue
is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby
set aside. The order passed by the Tehsildar
dated 25.3.2004 for recording the name of the
petitioners on the basis of the registered will
deed dated 19.2.2002 is hereby affirmed.

15. The writ petition stand
allowed.

16. Needless to say that the order
passed in mutation / summary proceeding
is always subject to adjudication of dispute
if any by the regular court.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 1349
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Writ-C No. 292 of 2024
With other connected cases

The Indian Express Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sunil Kumar Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Anand Kumar Chaubey, Sri Man
Mohan Singh, C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Constituion of India,1950Article 226-Working Journalists and Other
Newspaper
Employees(Conditions
of
Service)
and
Miscellaneous
Provisions
Act,1955-Section
17-The
petitioners
contested
the
validity
of
the
state
government's
notification
authorizing
specific officers to handle dispute 17 of the
act,1955-the
Assistant
Labour
Commissioner referred disputes to the
Labour Court regarding short payments to
employees-Held, the notification delegating
power u/s 17 was upheld as it was
consistent with the seamless mechanism
envisaged by the act,1955-Section 17 was
found to provide an integrated framework
for resolving disputes and recovering duesThe Assistant labor commissioner's role in
referring disputes was valid-The Labour
Court's findings on short payment of wages
were not challenged on merits but only on
technical grounds, which were dismissedThe court clarified that the Labour Court's
decision under section 17(3) was not an
"award" requiring publication under the
Industrial
Disputes
Act-Hence,
the
notification, reference to Labour Court and
recovery orders were upheld-The court
emphasized the intent of the act 1955 to
safeguard the rights of journalists and
newspaper
employees,
especially
concerning
wage
disputes
through
an
effective recovery mechanism.(Para 1to 60)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. ABP Pvt. Ltd. Vs U.O.I.(2014) 3 SCC 327

2. Avishek Raja & ors. Vs Sanjay Gupta(2017) 8
SCC 422

3. Pradhan Prabandbank/Unit Head M/s Amar
Ujala Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2018)7 ADJ 715

4. Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd. Jagatganj
Vns. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.(2020)7 ADJ 555

5. Ficus Pax (P) Ltd. Vs U.O.I.(2020) 4 SCC 810

6. Coleman Co.Ltd. Vs St.of Bih.(2015) 11 SCC
204

7. Awaz Prakashan (P) Ltd. Vs Pramod Kumar
Pujari (2003) 6 SCC 104
1350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
8. M/s Jagran Prakashan Ltd. & anr. V Labour
Court & ors. Writ-C 37024 of 2012

9. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd Vs Anil(2007) 1
SCC 601

10. P. Virudhachalam VS Lotus Mills(1998) 1
SCC 650

11. Nelson Motis Vs U.O.I.(1992) 4 SCC 711

12. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. Vs Vemuganti
Ramakrishan Rao(2013) 8 SCC 789

13. CBI Vs Ramesh Gelli(2016) 3 SCC 788

14. Indore Development Authority Vs Shailendra
(2018) 3 SCC 412

15. Smyuktha Karnataka Vs M.L. Satyanarayana
Rao & anr.(1986) LIC 626

16. Samarjit Ghosh Vs Bennet Coleman & Co. &
ors. (1987) 3 SCC 507

17. The Mgmt of Samyutha Karanataka Vs M.L.,
Satyanarayana Rao & anr.(1986)

18. Rajan Sandhi P. Vs U.O.I. & anr.(2010) 10
SCC 338

19. Novttis India Ltd Vs St.of W.B. & ors.(2004)
101 FLR 278

20. Smt Shushila Sharma Vs Sh. Pawan Sharma
WP No. 18946 of 2006

21. Sadhu Ram Vs DTC(1983) 4 SCC 165

22. St. of U.P. & ors. Vs C/M D.A.V . Inter
College & anr. (2009)6 ADJ (DB)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan
Agarwal, J.)

1. Through all these writ petitions, a
challenge has been made to the notification
dated
12.11.2014
issued
by
State
Government
specifying
the
officers
mentioned in Column II to be "authorities
competent" to dispose the application under
Section 17 of "Working Journalists and
other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of
Service) and Misc. Provisions Act, 1955"
(for short 'Act 1955'), the reference order
dated 10.03.2023 passed by Assistant
Labour
Commissioner,
Gautam
Budh
Nagar and order dated 22.05.2023 passed
by Labour Court, NOIDA rejecting the
application regarding jurisdiction of Court.

2. Writ Petition No. 292 of 2024
assails the order dated 10.11.2023 passed
by Labour Court, NOIDA, Gautam Budh
Nagar in WJA Case No. 01/2023, 02/2023,
03/2023,
04/2023,
05/2023,
06/2023,
07/2023, 08/2023, 09/2023, 10/2023 and
11/2023. As all the cases are interconnected
and petitioner is same in all the writ
petitions, with the consent of the parties,
they are heard and decided together. Writ
Petition No. 292 of 2024 is taken as the
leading case.

3. Petitioner before this Court, The
Indian Express Pvt. Ltd. is a company
incorporated under the provisions of
Companies Act having its registered office
at Mumbai and branch office at NOIDA at
Express Building B1/B Sector 10 NOIDA
and also a factory at NOIDA. It is a media
group known as "Indian Express Group" or
"Express Group". Respondent nos. 7 to 15
are newspaper employees of petitioner
company as defined under Section 2(c) of
Act 1955. Except respondent no. 13 who is
a working journalist as defined under
Section
2(f).
The
other
contesting
respondents are non-journalist newspaper
employees covered under Section 2(dd) of
the Act 1955.

4. The Act 1955 was enacted for
improvement and regulation of service
condition of working journalists and other
employees. The Act covers entitlement of
4 All. The Indian Express Pvt. Ltd. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1351
gratuity, provident fund settlement of
industrial disputes, leave with pay, hours of
working and minimum wages.

5.

Section
2(b)
defines
"newspaper" which means any printed
periodical work containing public news or
comments on public news and includes
such other class of printed periodical work
as may, from time to time, be notified in
this behalf by Central Government in the
Official Gazette. Section 2(c) defines
"newspaper employee" which not only
means working journalists but also includes
any other person employed to do any work
in, or in relation to, any newspaper
establishment.

6. Section 2(dd) was inserted by
Act No. 60 of 1974 which defines "nonjournalist newspaper employees" which
covers person employed to do any work in,
or
in
relation
to,
any
newspaper
establishment, but does not include a
working journalist or other employees
employed mainly in a managerial or
administrative capacity or in a supervisory
capacity.

7. "Working journalists" have
been defined in Section 2(f) which means
persons whose principal avocation is that
of journalist and also includes an editor, a
letter-writer,
news-editor,
sub-editor,
feature-writer,
copy-tester,
reporter,
correspondent,
cartoonists,
newsphotographer and proof-reader. Section 3
of Chapter II provides that provisions of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short
'Act of 1947') shall be subject to
modification specified in sub-section (2),
apply to, or in relation to, working
journalists as they apply to, or in relation
to workmen within the meaning of that
Act.
8. Section 9 provides for the
procedure for fixing and revising rates of
wages in respect of working journalists by
Wage
Board
constituted
by
Central
Government. The recommendation made
by Wage Board accepted by Central
Government are notified under Section 12
of the Act. Section 13 thereafter provides
that working journalists will be entitled to
wages at the rate not less than those
specified in the order on coming into
operation
of
an
order
of
Central
Government under Section 12.

9. Chapter II-A deals with nonjournalist newspaper employees. Section
13-B provides for fixation or revision of
rates of wages of non-journalists newspaper
employees. Section 13-C provides for
constitution of Wage Board by Central
Government for fixing and revising the
wages
of
non-journalist
newspaper
employees.

10. The Central Government in
exercise of power under Section 9 and 13-C
of the Act 1955 had constituted two Wage
Boards under Chairmanship of one Dr.
Justice Narayan Kurup. When Justice
Narayan Kurup resigned, Justice G.P.
Majithia was appointed as Chairman of two
Wage Boards. He made recommendation to
Central Government on 31.12.2010, which
was
accepted
on
25.10.2011
and
notification under Section 12 was published
on 11.11.2011.

11.

Various
newspaper
establishments challenged the Majithia
Wage Board Award under Article 32 of
Constitution of India before Hon'ble Apex
Court, leading case being ABP (Private
Ltd.) vs. Union of India, (2014) 3 SCC
327. The Apex Court dismissed all the
petitions
and
held
that
wages
as
1352 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
revised/determined shall be payable from
11.11.2011 when the Government of India
notified the recommendation of Majithia
Wage Boards. All the arrears upto March,
2014 shall be paid to all eligible persons in
four equal installments within a period of
one year and continue to pay the revised
wages from April, 2014 onwards.

12. As the wages and allowances
as per Majithia Wage Board were not paid
various contempt petitions were filed
before Hon'ble Apex Court. The contempt
petitions were decided by judgment and
order dated 19.06.2017, Avishek Raja and
others vs. Sanjay Gupta, (2017) 8 SCC
422. In para no. 29 of the said judgment,
the Apex Court directed that henceforth all
the complaints with respect to non
implementation of Majithia Wage Board
Award or otherwise be dealt with in terms
of mechanism provided under Section 17 of
the Act.

13. The State Government in
exercise of its power under sub-section (1)
of Section 17 of Act 1955 issued
notification dated 12.11.2014 which was
published in Official Gazette specifying the
"officers
competent"
to
dispose
of
application made under Section 17 of Act
1955.

14.

In
Pradhan
Prabandhank/Unit Head M/s. Amar
Ujala vs. State of U.P. and others, 2018
(7) ADJ 715, the dispute arose as to
competence
of
Deputy
Labour
Commissioner referring a dispute under
Section 17(2) of Act 1955 to Labour Court.
This Court found that State was competent
to delegate power for reference as it was an
administrative Act. Relevant paras 28, 29,
30,
31,
31
and
32
are
extracted
hereasunder:-
"28. The apex court in the case of
Samarjit
Ghosh's
case
(supra)
had
therefore observed that when all the
provisions of section 17 are considered
together it is apparent that they constitute a
single scheme. The apex court in Samarjit
Ghosh's case (supra) was dealing with a
situation where a newspaper employee had
moved an application under section (1) of
section 17 of the Act for recovery of dues. A
dispute in respect of those dues had been
raised and, in the meantime, the newspaper
employee had been transferred to a State
other than the State where he had moved an
application under sub-section (1) of section
17 of the Act. A question arose as to which
State Government would have a right to
make a reference under sub-section (2) of
section 17 of the Act for adjudication of the
dispute to effect recovery under sub-section
(1). In that context, the apex court had
observed that it was the State Government
before whom the application of recovery is
made which will refer the question as to the
amount due to the labour court and the
labour court, upon receiving its decision,
will forward its decision to the State
Government,
which
will
then
direct
recovery of the amount. While holding so,
the apex court had examined the provisions
of the Act and had come to a conclusion
that when all the provisions of section 17
are considered together, it is apparent that
they constituted a single scheme.
29. Further, under the Act, 1955, in
exercise of powers under section 20 of the
Act, 1955, Working Journalists (Conditions
of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions
Rules, 1957 (in short Rules, 1957) have
been framed. Rule 36 of Rules, 1957
provides for an application under Section
17 of the Act. It reads as follows:-
"36. Application under section 17
of the Act. -- An application under section
17 of the Act shall be made in Form ''C' to
4 All. The Indian Express Pvt. Ltd. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1353
the Government of the State, where the
Central Office or the Branch Office of the
newspaper establishment in which the
newspaper employee is employed, is
situated."
Form 'C' has been provided in the
Rules, 1957. Title of the application as
denoted by Form C is as follows:
"FORM 'C'
APPLICATION
UNDER
SUBSECTION (1) OF SECTION 17 OF THE
ACT 45 OF 1955
(Rule 36)
The
aforesaid
application
is
addressed
to
the
Secretary
to
the
Government..........."
30. The Rules, 1957 do not provide
for any separate application other than
application under sub-section (1) of section
17 of the Act.
Having gone through the provisions
of the Act, 1955, the Rules framed
thereunder, the decisions cited by the
learned counsel for the parties and, in
particular, the decision of the Apex Court in
Samarjit Ghosh's case (supra), this Court is
of the firm view that section 17 of the Act,
1955 contemplates a seamless single
scheme for recovery of amount due to a
newspaper employee from any employer
under the Act, 1955. The application by a
newspaper employee is to be filed under
sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Act, as
per Rule 36 of Rules, 1957. That
application can be filed before the State
Government or such authority, as the State
Government may specify in that behalf.
Where there exists no dispute, the State
Government or the authority, so specified,
upon being satisfied that any amount is so
due, shall issue a certificate for that
amount to the Collector and the Collector
would, thereafter, recover that amount as
an arrear of land revenue. Where a
question or dispute arises then a reference
is to be made to the labour court for
adjudication
of
the
dispute.
After
adjudicating the dispute, the labour court
has to forward its decision to the State
Government or authority which made the
reference, upon which the amount is to be
recovered in the manner provided by subsection (1) of the Act. 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 the Act.
31. In the State of Uttar Pradesh,
the State Government, by notification dated
12th November, 2016, has delegated its
powers to the Additional/Deputy/Assistant
Labour Commissioners of the regions
specified to dispose application made
under section 17 of the Act, 1955. The
notification does not limit the delegation to
exercise of power contemplated by subsection (1) of section 17. It is a broad
delegation to exercise power to dispose
application under Section 17. Once such
power has been conferred upon the
Additional/Deputy/Asst.
Labour
Commissioner, in case of a dispute, the
Deputy Labour Commissioner is also
empowered to make a reference and such
reference would be on behalf of the State
Government as one contemplated by subsection (2) of section 17 of the Act.
The contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that there is a
conscious omission of the words "such
authority, as the State Government may
specify in this behalf" in sub-section (2) of
section 17 of the Act, 1955 and therefore it
would be deemed that reference can be
made only by the State Government and not
by the specified authority cannot be
accepted because when various parts of
section 17 are read as a whole a single
seamless scheme emerges. Even otherwise,
1354 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the notification of the State Government
delegates power to the authority specified
to deal with applications under Section 17
which necessarily includes power to make
reference under Section 17(2).
32. It may be observed that a
reference under sub-section (2) of section
17 of the Act does not contemplate exercise
of
judicial/quasi-judicial
power
and
therefore the power which vests in the State
Government to make a reference can be
delegated and, in fact, by the notification
dated 12th November, 2014, the State
Government has clearly delegated its
power by specifying the authorities who are
competent to dispose the applications
contemplated by section 17 of the Act. In
fact, reference on an application under subsection (1) upon a question having arisen is
a step-in-aid of final disposal of an
application under section 17 (1) of the Act,
1955 and, therefore, by conferring power
on the specified authority to dispose the
application under Section 17, the State
Government, by necessary implication, has
conferred power to make a reference as
well."

15. Thereafter, various media
houses challenged the notification dated
12.11.2014 through various writ petitions
which was decided by co-ordinate Bench of
this Court on 08.07.2019, leading case
being Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd.
Jagatganj Varanasi vs. State of U.P. and
others, 2020 (7) ADJ 555 wherein the
Court held as under:-

"15. This Court is constrained to
say most respectfully that the reasoning of
his Lordship in paragraph 9 of the
judgment in Jagran Prakashan Limited vs.
State of Punjab and others (supra) is based
on some mistaken reading of the U.P.
Government Notification, inasmuch as, His
Lordship there has held that the U.P.
Notification has made a blanket law
delegating powers of the Government
under Section 17 of the Act to subordinate
officers, without specifying whether the
delegation is under sub-Section (1) or subSection (2) of Section 17. This reading of
the U.P. Notification is contrary to the
terms of the notification dated 12.11.2014,
which clearly spells out that the delegation
is under Section 17(1) of the Act. It is not a
blanket delegation under Section 17 as held
in Jagran Prakashan Limited vs. State of
Punjab and others (supra).
16. This Court is afraid that if for
a fact the basis of distinguishing the
decision in Pradhan Prabandhak/ Unit
Head M/s. Amar Ujala (supra), were
factually correct, which it is not, the
assistance sought to be derived by Sri
Tripathi from the decision of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court would have had
more diminished prospects. But, it is not so.
This Court has considered the reasoning
adopted in Jagran Prakashan Limited vs.
State of Punjab and others (supra) by the
Punjab and Haryana High Court, and with
greatest respect, for all that is said here
and in the decision of this Court in
Pradhan Prabandhak/ Unit Head M/s.
Amar Ujala (supra), this Court is unable to
agree."

16. Facts of leading Writ Petition
No. 292 of 2024 are that each of
respondents were entitled to get 35%
variable pay along with basic wages. The
contesting respondents had been being paid
their basic wages along with variable pay
till March, 2020. From 1st April 2020 to 28
February 2021, the petitioner had deducted
substantial amount from 35% variable pay
and in case of respondent no. 7, he was
paid Rs.1187 instead of Rs.6965, short by
Rs.5778.
Thus,
total
shortfall
was
4 All. The Indian Express Pvt. Ltd. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1355
Rs.63,558. Similarly, respondent no. 8 was
paid Rs.74,327/- short for the same period.
Respondent no. 9 was paid Rs.63,558/-
less, while respondent no. 10 was also paid
Rs.63558/- less. Respondent nos. 11, 12,
13, 14 and 15 were paid short by
Rs.74,327/-,
Rs.74,327/-,
Rs.1,47,106/-,
Rs.74,327/- and Rs.57,805/-.

17. This led to filing of application
under Section 17(1) of the Act 1955 before
Assistant Labour Commissioner, Gautam
Budh Nagar (Prescribed Authority under
notification dated 12.11.2014). By order
dated 07.12.2022, the Management was
directed to pay the deducted amount of
wages to respondents. The petitioner
challenged the order by filing Writ-C No.
659 of 2023 (The Indian Express Pvt. Ltd.
vs. Union of India and others) on the
ground that Prescribed Authority under
Section 17(1) could not decide the dispute
and correct procedure was to make
reference to Labour Court for adjudication
of dispute. This Court on 21.02.2023 set
aside the order dated 07.12.2022 and
directed the Prescribed Authority to refer
the dispute to Labour Court within two
weeks. After
remand
the
Prescribed
Authority has referred the dispute to
Labour Court on 10.03.2023 which is WJA
Case No. 01/2023, 02/2023, 03/2023,
04/2023,
05/2023,
06/2023,
07/2023,
08/2023, 09/2023, 10/2023 and 11/2023 of
the present writ petition and also by the
reference order dated 10.03.2023 to Labour
Court in all the other connected writ
petitions wherein the reference order is
under challenge.

18. In Writ Petition No. 292 of
2024, the Labour Court had passed the
order on 10.11.2023 adjudicating the
dispute and directing the petitioner to pay
the wages due which was deducted along
with 6% interest from the date due till the
date of payment while in the other
connected writ petitions only reference
order dated 10.03.2023 passed by Assistant
Labour
Commissioner
along
with
notification dated 12.11.2014 issued by
State
Government
and
order
dated
22.05.2023
passed
by
Labour
Court
rejecting
the
application
regarding
jurisdiction of Labour Court is under
challenge.

19. Sri Sunil Tripathi, learned
counsel
for
petitioner
submits
that
challenge through these bunch of writ
petitions have been made on five grounds.

20. Firstly, the Assistant Labour
Commissioner has no jurisdiction to refer a
dispute raised by an individual workman
for adjudication of dispute other than
discharge,
dismissal
or
termination.
According to him, before 1965 all disputes
were raised by Trade Union or with support
of considerable number of workers. Section
2-A was for the first time inserted in Act of
1947 in the year 1965, and later on Section
2-A was also inserted in U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'U.P. Act') in
the year 1978, whereby legal fiction was
created for giving status of workman to
working journalists who are not covered by
definition of workman. As per Section 2-A
dispute raised by individual workman shall
be deemed as industrial dispute only when
it is in regard to discharge, dismissal and
termination. Under the Act 1955, there are
two categories of employees (i) working
journalists (ii) non-journalist newspaper
employees. Working journalist in view of
their duties are not covered under definition
of "workman". By virtue of legal fiction
under Section 3 of Act 1955, working
journalists have been given limited right to
raise
disputes
in
individual
capacity
1356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
regarding
discharge,
dismissal
and
termination of service. Despite Section 2A, working journalists have no right to
raise any dispute in individual capacity for
any matter not connected with discharge,
dismissal and termination. As far as nonjournalist
newspaper
employees
are
concerned,
they
are
covered
under
definition
of
"workman",
limitation
imposed by Section 2-A would apply in
their case as it applies to working
journalists.
Non-journalist
newspaper
employees were not entitled to raise any
industrial dispute before insertion of
Section 2-A in the year 1978 in U.P. Act.
Since 1978 they have been given right to
raise industrial dispute in individual
capacity only for discharge, dismissal and
termination but have no right to raise
dispute in individual capacity for any
other matter.

21. Secondly, he urged that
impugned award has been delivered
without
permission
of
appropriate
Government for publishing the award. It
was statutory obligation of Labour Court
to first submit the award to State
Government under Section 6(1). Under
Section 6(4), Labour Court shall form an
opinion whether the award can be
published within 30 days as prescribed
under Section 6(3). As per Section 6A(1),
an award shall become enforceable on
expiry of 30 days. As disputed question
was referred under Section 17(2) for
adjudication to Labour Court, any order
passed under Section 17(2) is award and
Labour
Court
is
under
statutory
obligation to submit the award under
Section
6(1)
to
State
Government.
Impugned award was declared without
submitting
the
award
to
State
Government for forming opinion under
Section 6(4).
22. Thirdly, it was urged that
Assistant Labour Commissioner has no
jurisdiction to refer a disputed issue under
Section 17(2) of the Act 1955. According
to him, the section confers power of
reference only upon the State Government.
He then submitted that against the
judgment rendered by co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in case of Pradhan
Prabandhank
(supra),
three Special
Appeal Nos. 777 of 2019, 778 of 2019 and
779 of 2019 have been filed which are
pending consideration.

23. Fourthly, it was contended that
under Section 17(2) only State Government
on its own motion or on the application
made to it refer the question to Labour
Court. According to him, use of impression
"such authority, as the State Government
may specify in this behalf" under Section
17(1) and absence of this expression in
Section 17(2) is conscious omission and
not casus omissus. According to him,
respondents
employees
had
filed
application under Section 17(1) of the Act
1955 but they have not filed any
application through Union or with support
of considerable number of workers under
Section 17(2) of the Act.

24. It was lastly contended that
respondents employees filed application
under Section 17(1) for claiming partial
wages for 11 months from April, 2020 to
February, 2021. According to him, the
issue regarding payment of wages for
COVID-19 period was challenged by
several establishments before Hon'ble
Apex Court. First petition was filed by
Ficus Pax (P) Ltd. v. Union of India,
(2020) 4 SCC 810, in which vires of
notification
dated
29.03.2020
was
challenged. The Apex Court had passed
an interim order.
4 All. The Indian Express Pvt. Ltd. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1357
25. Reliance has been placed upon
decisions in cases of Bennett Coleman &
Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, (2015) 11 SCC
204; Awaz Prakashan (P) Ltd. v. Pramod
Kumar Pujari, (2003) 6 SCC 104; M/s.
Jagran Prakashan Ltd. and another v.
Labour Court and others, Writ-C No.
37024 of 2012, decided on 04.08.2020;
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. Anil,
(2007) 1 SCC 610; P. Virudhachalam v.
Lotus Mills, (1998) 1 SCC 650; Nelson
Motis v. Union of India, (1992) 4 SCC
711; Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. v.
Vemuganti Ramakrishan Rao, (2013) 8
SCC 789; CBI v. Ramesh Gelli, (2016) 3
SCC 788 and Indore Development
Authority v. Shailendra, (2018) 3 SCC
412.

26. Sri Man Mohan Singh, learned
counsel appearing for workmen submitted
that in petitioner establishment there are
two categories of employees - (a) working
journalist (b) non-journalist newspaper
employees (administrative staff and factory
staff). Respondent no. 13 belongs to
category of working journalist while others
are covered under non-journalist newspaper
employees. According to him, petitioner
has raised legal issues which have already
been dealt with by this Court earlier
through various
pronouncements. The
dispute raised as to reference by Assistant
Labour Commissioner to Labour Court, it
is
submitted
that
Government
had
delegated the power by notification dated
12.11.2014.
The
notification
was
challenged in Hindustan Media Ventures
(supra) and writ petition was dismissed on
08.07.2019, relying upon the decision
rendered
in
case
of
Pradhan
Prabandhank (supra).

27. Replying to the question that
reference of individual workman is not
covered under Section 2-A of the Act of
1947, he submitted that Act 1955 is a
special Act, enacted specifically for
regulating the services of a particular class
of employees employed in newspaper
establishment. The Act takes note of
special feature of these categories of
newspaper employees and takes care of
their service condition, thus, special Act,
in respect of journalist and non-journalist
newspaper
employees,
and
excludes
general provisions of Industrial Disputes
Act. Section 17 has been incorporated as a
special remedy for recovery of wages or
any other amount due to a working
journalist and non-journalist newspaper
employee from his employer individually.
Reliance has been placed upon decision of
Karnataka
High
Court
in
case
of
Samyuktha
Karnataka
vs.
M.L.
Satyanarayana Rao and another, 1986
LIC 626. Further, Section 16 provides that
if
provision
of
any
other
law
is
inconsistent with provisions of Act 1955,
the Act 1955 shall have overriding effect.
Section 3 is an enabling clause. It does not
mean that in case if for specific purpose a
provision already exist, it shall not be
followed or the Act of 1947 shall prevail
over the Act 1955.

28. Emphasis has been laid upon
the words "employee himself, or any
person" used in Section 17(1) which
provides right to an individual employee to
make an application before the State
Government or such authority, in regard to
wage or any amount due. Rule 36 and
Form-C also provide for making only one
application under Section 17(1) and no
further application is provided under
Section 17(2), thus, application made under
Section 17(1) by an employee before
Prescribed Authority shall make reference
under Section 17(2) to the Labour Court.
1358 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
29. Replying the question as to
award having not sent for publication,
learned counsel submitted that words used
in Sub-section (3) of Section 17 are
"decision of Labour Court" and not
"award" which is used under the Act of
1947 and cognate statutes, hence, the same
is not required for publication under the Act
of 1947.

30. Reliance has been placed upon
decisions in cases of Samarjit Ghosh v.
Bennet Coleman and Co. and others,
(1987) 3 SCC 507; The Management of
Samyutha
Karnataka
v.
M.L.
Satyanarayana Rao and another, 1986
LIC 626, Rajan Sandhi P. v. Union of
India & another, (2010) 10 SCC 338;
Novttis India Ltd. v. State of West
Bengal and others, 2004 (101) FLR 278;
Smt. Shushila Sharma v. SH. Pawan
Sharma, Writ Petition No. 18946 of 2006,
decided on 17.01.2007; Sadhu Ram v.
Delhi Transport Corporation, (1983) 4
SCC 165 and State of U.P. and others v.
Committee of Management D.A.V. Inter
College and another, 2009 (6) ADJ 243
(DB).

31. I have heard respective counsel
for the parties and perused the material on
record.

32. Some of the issues raised
through these connected petitions have
already been answered by this Court in case
of Pradhan Prabandhank (supra) and
Hindustan
Media
Ventures
(supra).
However, an attempt has been made from
petitioner's side to raise some additional
issues along with decided issues for
consideration of this Court.

33. Primarily, petitioner has tried
to raise jurisdictional issue of reference by
Prescribed Authority under notification
dated 12.11.2014 to the Labour Court on
the premise that it was incompetent to refer
as the dispute does not deal with discharge,
dismissal and termination of an employee.

34. In Pradhan Prabandhank
(supra), this Court had already found that
reference under sub-section (2) of Section
17 does not contemplate exercise of
judicial/quasi-judicial power and, therefore,
the power which vests in the State
Government to make a reference can be
delegated and, in fact, by notification dated
12.11.2014, the State Government had
clearly delegated its power by specifying
the authorities who are competent to
dispose the applications contemplated by
Section 17 of the Act.

35. The Court further found that
reference on an application under subsection (1) upon a question having arisen is
a step-in-add of final disposal of an
application under Section 17(1) of the Act
1955 and, therefore, by conferring power on
the specified authority to dispose the
application under Section 17, the State
Government, by necessary implication, has
conferred power to make a reference as well.

36. In Hindustan Media Ventures
(supra),
the
challenge
was
laid
to
notification dated 12.11.2014, and the
Court refused to quash the notification and
relying upon the decision rendered in
Pradhan Prabandhank (supra) upheld the
notification.

37. Moreover, the Apex Court in
Samarjit Ghosh (supra) found that all the
provisions of Section 17, considered
together
constitute
a
single
scheme.
Relevant para 6 of the judgment is
extracted hereasunder:-
4 All. The Indian Express Pvt. Ltd. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1359
"6. When all the provisions of
Section 17 are considered together it is
apparent that they constitute a single
scheme. In simple terms the scheme is
this. A newspaper employee, who claims
that an amount due to him has not been
paid by his employer, can apply to the
State Government for recovery of the
amount. If no dispute arises as to the
amount due the Collector will recover the
amount from the employer and pay it over
to the newspaper employee. If a question
arises as to the amount due, it is a
question which arises on the application
made by the newspaper employee, and
the application having been made before
the appropriate State Government it is
that State Government which will call for
an adjudication of the dispute by
referring the question to a Labour Court.
When the Labour Court has decided the
question, it will forward its decision to
the State Government which made the
reference,
and
thereafter
the
State
Government will direct that recovery
proceedings shall be taken. In other
words the State Government before whom
the application for recovery is made is
the State Government which will refer the
question as to the amount due to a
Labour Court, and the Labour Court
upon reaching its decision will forward
the decision to the State Government,
which will then direct recovery of the
amount."

38. Rule 36 which finds place in
Chapter
VI
of
Working
Journalists
(Condition
of
Service)
and
Misc.
Provisions
Rules,
1957
provides
for
application under Section 17 of the Act
which shall be made in Form 'C' to the
Government of the State, where the Central
Office or Branch Office of newspaper
establishment in which the newspaper
employee is employed, is situated.

39. Further, Form 'C' was inserted
by G.S.R. 1320, dated 01.08.1963, which
specifically mentions application under
sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act
1955. Relevant Form 'C' is extracted
hereasunder:-

"Form 'C'
[See Rule 36]
Application under sub-section (1)
of Section 17 of the Working Journalists
(Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1955
To,
The Secretary to the Government
of ...............(here insert the name of the
State Government).
Department
of................(here
insert the name of the Department which
deals
with
the
labour
matters)....................................(here
insert the name of the place where the
headquarters of the State Government are
situated).
Sir,
I
have
to
state
that
I
Shri/Shrimati/Kumari........................
............son/
widow/
daughter
of.........................,
a
working
journalist, was entitled to receive from
...................(here insert the name and
address of the newspaper establishment) a
sum
of
Rs...............
on
account
of..........................(here insert gratuity,
wages, etc. as the case may be), payable
under the Working Journalists (Conditions
of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1955 (45 of 1955).
I further state that I was appointed
by
Shri
.............................by
an
instrument, dated ....................., to
1360 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
receive the amount of the gratuity on behalf
of Shri/Km .....................................
I further state that I served the said
newspaper establishment with a demand
notice by registered post on.....................
for the said amount which the said newspaper
establishment has neither paid nor offered to
pay to me even though 15 days have since
lapsed. The details of the amount due are
mentioned in the statement hereto annexed.
I request that the said sum may
kindly be recovered from the said newspaper
establishment under Section 17 of the said
Act, and paid to me as early as possible.
*[I have been duly authorized in
writing by .........................(here insert
the name of the newspaper employee) to
make his application and to receive the
payment of the aforesaid amount due to him.]
*[I am a member of the family of
late............................(insert the name
of the deceased newspaper employee), being
his..........................(here
insert
the
relationship) and am entitled to receive the
payment of the aforesaid amount due to late
...............................(here
insert
the
name of the deceased newspaper employee].
*To be struck out when the payment
is claimed by the newspaper employee
himself.

Station.........
... Signature of the applicant
Date......
.... Address..........

ANNEXURE
[Here insert the details of the
amount claimed]"

40. Under the Rules, there is no
other form except Form 'C' which provides
for making application under Section 17(1).
Moreover, the entire scheme of Section 17
emphasises recovery of money due from an
employer. Sub-section (1), (2) and (3) only
categorise the stages. Sub-section (1)
enumerates the condition when there is no
dispute as to the amount, then on an
application made by an employee himself
or by any person authorised by him, or in
case of his death, by any member of his
family, the State on its satisfaction that
amount is due recover the same through
Collector. Sub-section (2) envisages a
situation where question arises as to the
amount, then on an application which has
already been preferred under sub-section
(1) of Section 17, the State Government
refers the question to Labour Court for
adjudication.

41. Once the Labour Court makes
a decision, it forwards the same to State
Government which made the reference and
any amount found due by Labour Court is
to be recovered in the manner provided in
sub-section (1). All the three sub-sections
of Section 17 are intertwined, and subsection (1) and (2) only differentiate the
method for arriving at the amount due from
an employer to an employee. In case of
sub-section (1) where there is no dispute to
the amount, the same is recovered from
employer by State machinery for the
employee.

42. However, in case of any
question arisen as to any amount due
reference is to be made to Labour Court on
the application which has already been
preferred in Form 'C' before State
Government under sub-section (1) of
Section 17. Thus, from the reading of
Section 17, it is abundantly clear that it
constitutes a single scheme of recovery of
money from employer.

43. The State Government while
exercising its administrative power had
4 All. The Indian Express Pvt. Ltd. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1361
delegated the same by notification dated
12.11.2014 specifying the authorities who
are competent to dispose the applications
contemplated by Section 17 of the Act
1955.

44. Section 3 of the Act 1955,
under Chapter II is only an enabling
provision which provides that Act of 1947,
subject to modifications specified in subsection (2), applied to, or in relation to,
working journalists. The argument that
after insertion of Section 2-A in the Act of
1947 in the year 1965 restricts a working
journalist who is covered as a workman
from raising an industrial dispute in an
individual capacity except in case of
discharge, dismissal and retrenchment is
totally misplaced.

45.