# [1975] 3 S.C.R. 499

- **Citation:** [1975] 3 S.C.R. 499
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1974-04-23
- **Bench:** P. J..\Ganmohan Reddy, S. N. Dwivedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1975-3-s-c-r-499-6429
- **Pages:** 20

## Headnote

Worki11g Journalists (Co11ditions of Servia) and Miscdlaneous
Provisions
Act (45 of
1955),
s.
10-Recommendarion by Wage Board of wages etc.
of 1rnrki11R Joumalists-Rea.wnab/wes.1· of-Classifica1ion of P. T.l.;_Jf vwlative
of A rt. 14.
Practice and Procedure-Substit111/on of shareholder of company affected as
per;1ioner 10 challenge order on the basi.1 of Art. 19-Propriety.
The Central Government by an order dated October 27, 1967, accepted
substantially the recommendations of the Wage Board constituted under s. 9 of
the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision~
Act, 1955, in respect of wages etc. of working journalists. The Press Trust of
lrnlia (P.T.I.) and the Indian National Press Ltd., tiled writ petitiou5 challenging
the order of the Government accepting the recommendations. The P.T.I. contended that, ( 1) it was discriminated against both in respect of the classification and in the fixation of wages; (2) there was a violation of s. 10 of tht
Act as the Wage Board bad not taken into consideration it5 capacity to pay;
and (3) the Board exceeded its jurisdiction in 8Warding
to
the
employee!
wages higher than what were demanded.
Allowing the writ petition of the P.T.I. and dismissing that of the Ind.ian
National Press.
HE·LD : The order of the Central Government, in ~o far as the P.T.I. is
concerned i5 struck down a.nd the P.T.I. directed to pay the wages agreed to
between the P.T.I. and its employees from the date when wages were payable
according to the, recommendation of the Wago Board, till the wage& are re-fixed
by the Central Government on the recommendations of another Wage Board.
No case was made out by the Indian National Press that it had no capacity to
meet the wage increase, particularly when it bad been placed in the appropriat•
class in which it should have been placed on the basis of ih gross profits.
[518 D; HJ
( 1) (a) The definition of 'newspaper establishment' cannot be drawn on for
the purposes of justifying only one classification of all the establishment included
in that definition.
Obviously newspapers and news agencies have different
functions.
They have different sources of revenue and the services rendered
by each are different.
Also, the broad classification may again be subdivided
and sub-classified according to the capacity of ead of the categories. [509 A-C]
( b) The Wage Board in its recommendations has stated that for the purposes of fixation of Wages for working journalists, newspapers and news agencies
should be classified in the manner therein provided and that such classification
should be based on the gross revenues for the accounting years 1963, 1964
and 1965.
On this basis newspaix:rs and news agencies have
been
divided
into 7 dasses, class II containing establishments with gross revenue between
Rs. 100 and Rs. 200 la.khs, and Class III between Rs. 50 and Rs. 100 Iakhs.
[509 DJ
( c) The classification is b11Sed on intelligible differential namely, the capacity of each news agency to pay; and between News p~pers and news agencies,
on the nature of the service rendered, the sources of income and the manner
in which the iervice is rendered. The criteria for classification also bears a
rational reh.tionship to the object to be achieved, namely, wages
to be fixei!.
[510 GJ
( d) But it is. well established that even where legislative action or any action
taken is und.er any law against a 1;ingle individual of things ·or several individual
500
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 3 :5.C.R.
persons or things where no reasonable basis for classification may appear on
the face of it or dedudbh: f'rom the surrounding cirr;umstances, that action is
lrnble to be stmck down as an insiance of discrimination.
(510 HJ
Ameerunnissa Begl11n and Ors. v. Mahboob Begum and Ors., (1953] S.C.R.
404, Ram Pwsad Kararnn Sahi and Anr. v. The State of Bihar and Ors., (1953]
S.C.R. 1129 and Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S. R. Tendo/kar and
Ors., (1959] S.C.R. 279 at 299.
(e) The P.T

## Text

_Characters 0–39,947 of 66,903. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39947 for what follows._

A
c
D
E
F
G
H
499
PRESS TRUST OF INDIA AND ANR.
\!.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
April 23, 1974
[P. J..\GANMOHAN REDDY AND S. N. DWIVEDI .. JJ.]
Worki11g Journalists (Co11ditions of Servia) and Miscdlaneous
Provisions
Act (45 of
1955),
s.
10-Recommendarion by Wage Board of wages etc.
of 1rnrki11R Joumalists-Rea.wnab/wes.1· of-Classifica1ion of P. T.l.;_Jf vwlative
of A rt. 14.
Practice and Procedure-Substit111/on of shareholder of company affected as
per;1ioner 10 challenge order on the basi.1 of Art. 19-Propriety.
The Central Government by an order dated October 27, 1967, accepted
substantially the recommendations of the Wage Board constituted under s. 9 of
the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision~
Act, 1955, in respect of wages etc. of working journalists. The Press Trust of
lrnlia (P.T.I.) and the Indian National Press Ltd., tiled writ petitiou5 challenging
the order of the Government accepting the recommendations. The P.T.I. contended that, ( 1) it was discriminated against both in respect of the classification and in the fixation of wages; (2) there was a violation of s. 10 of tht
Act as the Wage Board bad not taken into consideration it5 capacity to pay;
and (3) the Board exceeded its jurisdiction in 8Warding
to
the
employee!
wages higher than what were demanded.
Allowing the writ petition of the P.T.I. and dismissing that of the Ind.ian
National Press.
HE·LD : The order of the Central Government, in ~o far as the P.T.I. is
concerned i5 struck down a.nd the P.T.I. directed to pay the wages agreed to
between the P.T.I. and its employees from the date when wages were payable
according to the, recommendation of the Wago Board, till the wage& are re-fixed
by the Central Government on the recommendations of another Wage Board.
No case was made out by the Indian National Press that it had no capacity to
meet the wage increase, particularly when it bad been placed in the appropriat•
class in which it should have been placed on the basis of ih gross profits.
[518 D; HJ
( 1) (a) The definition of 'newspaper establishment' cannot be drawn on for
the purposes of justifying only one classification of all the establishment included
in that definition.
Obviously newspapers and news agencies have different
functions.
They have different sources of revenue and the services rendered
by each are different.
Also, the broad classification may again be subdivided
and sub-classified according to the capacity of ead of the categories. [509 A-C]
( b) The Wage Board in its recommendations has stated that for the purposes of fixation of Wages for working journalists, newspapers and news agencies
should be classified in the manner therein provided and that such classification
should be based on the gross revenues for the accounting years 1963, 1964
and 1965.
On this basis newspaix:rs and news agencies have
been
divided
into 7 dasses, class II containing establishments with gross revenue between
Rs. 100 and Rs. 200 la.khs, and Class III between Rs. 50 and Rs. 100 Iakhs.
[509 DJ
( c) The classification is b11Sed on intelligible differential namely, the capacity of each news agency to pay; and between News p~pers and news agencies,
on the nature of the service rendered, the sources of income and the manner
in which the iervice is rendered. The criteria for classification also bears a
rational reh.tionship to the object to be achieved, namely, wages
to be fixei!.
[510 GJ
( d) But it is. well established that even where legislative action or any action
taken is und.er any law against a 1;ingle individual of things ·or several individual
500
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 3 :5.C.R.
persons or things where no reasonable basis for classification may appear on
the face of it or dedudbh: f'rom the surrounding cirr;umstances, that action is
lrnble to be stmck down as an insiance of discrimination.
(510 HJ
Ameerunnissa Begl11n and Ors. v. Mahboob Begum and Ors., (1953] S.C.R.
404, Ram Pwsad Kararnn Sahi and Anr. v. The State of Bihar and Ors., (1953]
S.C.R. 1129 and Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S. R. Tendo/kar and
Ors., (1959] S.C.R. 279 at 299.
(e) The P.T.I. has been placed in the category of Class II Jnstead ,Jf class
III, to which it admitted!)'. belongs.
There is however, no mdication as to
wlw e::tenl the Wage Board has considered the relevant materials either of the
Press Commission, or in an award in the industrial dispute between th.:: P.T.l.
and their workmen, and various other circumstances and representations made
by the P .T.I., such as its inability to increase subscriptions and want of legal
means to compel any increase.
Whether the financial potentiality ot the: l'.T.l.
was considned as the basis for including it in class ll category instead ot in
clas~ ll1 category, contrary to the criteria prescribed by the Wage Board itself,
is uls0 not evident from the recommendatiom of the Board. All that is discernible is that because the P. T.I. has the status of a national news agency., which
caters even for top class papers, it should be pla~ed in class II category.
How
the position of the P.T.I. as a national news agency has any relevance to the
criteia relatable to its gross revenue has not been specified, nor is it assertainable as to how the catering to the top class papers would increase its gross re•enue.
The P.T.I. was required to continue in class II as Jong as It satisfies the criteria
for class Ill, namely, so long as its gross revenue is less than Rs. JOO lakhs.
This is arbitrary and singles out the P.T.I. for discrimination.
[513 D-F]
(2) (a) The yield from subscriptions for the years 1971, 1Y72 amt 1973
on which the respondents relied, are not relevant for fixation of wages in 1967,
tbougJ'J they may justify a wa~ revision by another Board. (514 C-D]
(b) The Wage Board it:·:elf had staled that Rs. 6.78 lakhs per annu:n would
be the recurring financial burden which would have to be borne by the P.T.l.
on accot:nt of the implemen\"tion of its final propo~als. It could not be wntended by the respondents that this amount is the estimated burden on th,~ basis
of implementation of the recommemlall0ns 01. the IV age Board for bo1h working Journalists and non-working journalists. and that as far as working .Journal·
ists are concerned, the burden will amount to only Rs. 3.48 Iakhs which is Jess
than ihc average profit of Rs. 3.67 lak.hs.
No doubt the wage increi£se·s will
have to be met from the revenue and only thereafter the profits can be computed.
But whether the burden of Rs. 6.78 lakh is in respect of the workin&
journalists or in respect of both the working and non-working journalist:;, it is
none the less the burden which the P.T.J. has to bear. In judging the financial
capacity of the employer one has to look at the burden as a whole. It cannot
be said that the estab!ishment should pay the workinr journalists first the recommended wages an<l uti!i?_e whatever balance remains for payment to the nonworking Journalists irrespective of whether they can be paid thz wage recom- ·
mended or not. becm1se, that is not what is envisaged in the term capacity to
pay.
The Wage Board, while recognizing that the burden was heavy, assumed without
any discussion that the P.T.L could increase
its subscription and
tighten its organisation.
But assumptions are not enough.
What the
Act says
is, as~ertain the financial capacity and fix the wages according to that capactty.
[514 G-Hffi 515 B-C]
Express News papers (P) Ltd. & Aw. v. The Union of India and Ors. (]959)
S.C.R. 12, followed.
(3) The impugned order of the Central Go~ernment also suffers from the
infirmity that it has a-ccepted the recommendations of the 'Nage Board when
it has pccscribed a wage higher than that asked for by the employees of: the
P.T.I.
Section IO of the Act confers a right of representation on both employers
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
anct employees and has prescribed a pro~~dure for calling upon the newspaper
H
establishment and working journalists and other persons interested in the fixation
or revision of wages for working journalists to make representations and thereafter it is Incumbent on the Board to take into account those representatiom and
examine the material placed before it in the light of those representatiom for.
A
B
c
D
P. T. r. v. UNION (Jaganmohan Reddy, J.)
501
making its recommendations. Any infringement of this procedural safeguard
would affect its recommendations.
The employers could only meet the claim
of the employees, but could not meet the recommendation for a wage higher
than .that asked for.
A Jaw providing reasonable restrictions in the exercise of
the nght conferred by Art. 19 may contain substantive provisions as well as
procedural provisions. The reasonableness of the restriction whether substanuvely or procedurally has to be judged from the point of view of the right that
has been in fact restricted, [517 F-H]
In the present case, the recommendations being in excess of what the employe~s themselves demanded and being beyond the financial capacity of the -
estabhshment, are unreason<1ble.
The order of the Central Government, in
so far as the P.T.I. is concerned, is violative of their fundamental rights and must
be struck oown.
\ -
Dr. N. B. Khare v. The State of Delhi, [1950] S.C.R. 521 followed.
( 4) The petitions were originally filed with two affected persons
as
the
second pditioner in each of the writs.
On the death of one and withdrawal
of the other, petitions were filed to substitute a share holder of the !st pe!Itioner
in each writ, as the 2nd petitioner.
A shareholder can challenge the order
if the restriction on his right under Art.!9(!)(fi is unreasonable. If the impugned order places a heavy burden on the resources of the company or the
wage has been fixed without taking into consideration the capacity to pay, or
where a wage higher than what the Journalists asked for is fixed without hearing
the employer, then that burden will affect the shareholders. In the interests of
)Ustice, balance of convenience . and preventing the prolonging of litigation :he
Court is therefore, justified in granting the substitution of petitioner~ prayed tor
in the petitions.
[506 G-A; 507 DJ
- CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2102 of 1968.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Order dated the 27th October,
E
1967 of the Government of India (Ministry of Labour, Employment
and Rehabilitation) made under Section 12(1) · of Working Journalists (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955
(45 of 1955).
F
G
H
AND
WRIT PETITIONS NOS. 37 AND 40 OF 1968
Petitions Under Article 3 2 of the Constitution of India.
G. B. Pai, A. G. Meneses, 0. C. Mathur, and Ravinder Narain,
for the appellant/petitioners.
Lal Narain Sinha, Sol. Gen. of India, Girish Chandra Mathur and
S. p, Nayar for Respondent No. 1
M. K. Ramamurthy and J. Ramamurthy for Respondent No.
2
K. Rajendra Chaudhry, for the Intervener (In C.A. 2102/68).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.-The appeal and the writ petVion No.
40 of 1968 are by the Press Trust of India, while writ petition No. 37
of 1968 is by the Indian National Press (Bomb2y) Ltd. The appeal
and the writ petitions challenge the order datal October 27,
1967
issued by the first respondent-the Union
of India, Ministry of
502
SUl'REME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 3 S.C.R.
Labour, Employment and Rehabilitation (Department of Labour and
Employment) accepting the recommendations of the Wage
Board
constituted under s. 9 or the Worlcin~ Journalists
(Conditions
of
Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1956 (45 of 1955)-
herein-after referred to as 'the Act'-as violatirrg Arts. 14, 19 and
21 of the Constitution of India. The order accepting the recomm(mdations in respect of the wages, scales of pay etc. of the working journalisis was
subji~ct to
certain minor modifications therein
specified,
being modifications which in the opinion of the Central Government
did not effect important alterations in the character of the
recommendations. T11e second respondent is the · Indian
Federation
of
Working Journalists.
At .he outset a preliminary objection was rais~ on behalf of the
first respondent, whid1 was also supported by the second respondent,
that the appeal is not maintainable under Art. 136 of :the Constitution, in:ismuch as the Central Government which passed the order
dated October 27, 1967 is neither a Court nor a Tribunal1 and the
order passed by it is not a judicial order but a statutory ord1!r-a
piece of subordinate legislation. It may
here be
mentioned that
caveats were entered into at the time when special leave petitions came
for hearing on September 26, 1968, and this Cour:t granted leave on
that day subject to the right to urge the preliminary objection as to
the maintainability of the appeals. So far as the writ petitions
are
concerned, aii objection has also been raised that as the second petitioner A. B. Nair in writ petition No. 37 of 1968 ha1 died during
the pendency of the petition. ·and as 1U1 application had been filed
in1 writ petition No. 40 of 1968 to delete the name of the
second
petitioner Uma Shankar Dikshit, the first petitioner in both the petitions being limited companies, the reliefs claimed could only bf:. confined to Arts. 14 and 31 of the Constitution and not to Art. 19 under
which the guarantee of fundamental rights is only
available to a
citizen of India, which the limited companies are not. In
ordE~r to
appreciate tr.c~e objecitions it is necessary to set cut certain provisions
of law and indisputable facts.
·
Under s. 9 of the Act, there is power to constitute a Wage Board
for fuing or revising rates of wages in respect of working journalists.
Once the Board is consfituted it shall, by a notice published in such
manner as it thinks fit, call upon newspaper
establishments
and
working journalists and other persons interested in the fixation
or
revision of rates of wages of working ·journalists to make such representations as they n18Y think fit (s. 10(1)); every such representation
shall be in writing and shall be made within such period as the Board
may specify in the notice and shalt state the rates of wages which in
the opinion of the person making the representation, would be reasonable ( s. 10(2)). Af1'.er taking into account the representatiom:
and
· after examining the materials, the Board shall make such recommendations as it· thinks fit to the Central Government for th1.: fixation or revision of rates of wages with .. effect from a date as mav be
specified by the Board (s. 10(3)).-It is further provided ins. 10(4)
that in making any recommendations to the Central Govemme11t, the
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
~
P. T. I. v. UNION (Jaganmohan Reddy,!.)
503
Board shall have regard to the cost of living, the prevalent rates of
wa~es for comparabi" employment, ,the circumstances relating to the
newspaper inidustry in ditterent regions of the country and to any
other cJTcumstances which to the Board may seem relevant.
The Central Government had, i!li exercise of the powers conferred uuder s. 9 of the Act, constituted a Wage Board and after receiving the recommendations of that Board published them in the Gazette
ot India Extra-ordinary dated May 11, 1957. The Commissioner of
Labour, Madras, issued a circular on May 30, 1957, calling upon
the management of all newspaper establishments in the State to send
to him the report of the ~ross revenue for the three years, i.e. 1952,
1953 and 19:i4, within a period of one month from the date of the
publication of the Board's decisio!li, i.e. not later than June 10, 1957.
Thereafter writ petitions were filed by Express Newspapers (Private
Ltd. etc. challenging the vires of the Act on the ground that the provisions of the Ac.t were violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed
by Arts. 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and 14 of
the
Constitution.
The
decision of the Wage Board was challenged on various grounds which
were in pari mauria with the objections that had been urged by the
representatives of the employers in the minutes of
dissenlt
which
they had appended and it was contended that the implementation of
the decision would be beyond the capacity of the
petitioners
and
would resul1t in their total collapse. This Court had in Express News-
·papers (Private) Ltd. & Anr. v. The Vinion of India and Others( 1)
held certain provisions of the Act to be ultra vires and so far as s.
9 ( 1) of the Act was concerned, it held that that section when pro1
perly construed made it incumbent on lthe Wage Boa.rd to take into
consideration the capacity of the newspaper industry to pay the rates
ankl scales of wages recommended by it and as there wa~ nothing to
indicate that it had done so, Ms decision was void and inoperative.
It further held that the impugned Act, judged by its provisions, was
not such a . law but was beneficient legislation intended to regulate
the conditions of service of the working journalists and the consequences that were
adverted to in that case could not be the direct
and inevitable -result of it. It also expressed the view that although
there could be no doublt that 1 liberty of the press was an essential part
of the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed
under
Art.
19(1) (a) and if the law were to single out the press to lay prohi·
bitive burdens it would fall outside the protection afforded by Art.
19(2), tl).e impugned act which directly affected the press and fail
outside the categories of protection mentioned in Art. 19(2) had
not the effect of taking away or abridging the freedom of speech and
expression of tho petitioners and did not, therefore, injfringe
Art.
19(1) (a) of the Constitution. Nor could it be held to be violative of
Art. 19 (1) ( g) of tho Constitution in view of the test of reasonableness laid down by \this Court.
The question whether the functions performed by the Wage Board
are administrative, judicial or quasi-judicial, or legislative in character
(1) [1959] S.C.R. 12.
504
SUPR-£ME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 3 s.c.R.
was also raised before this Court in thl! Express Newspapers case.
(supra) This question was said to assume importance on two g1:ou~1~s,
viz., (i) whether the decisions of the wage boards are open to :iud1cial
review, and (ii) whether the principle of audi alteram partem applies
to the proceedings before the Wage Boards. If the functions performed hy them were administrative or legislative in character, they
would not be subject to judicial review, and not only would they not
be amenable to writs of certiorari or prohibition under Arts. 32 and
226 of the Constitution, they would also not be amenable
to
the
exercise of special leave jurisdiction under Art. 136. Their decisions,
moreover, wr:ild not be vulnerable· on the ground thait the principle
of audi alteram vartem, i.e. no man shall be condemned unheard,
was not followed in the course of the proceedings before them and
the procedun: adopted by them was contrary to the principles of
natural justice. Afte: examining the principles and :the cases in which
the character of the functions of the Tribunals or the Boards as such
had been considered, this Court expressed the view that it was not
possible to hoid thalt the functions performed by the Wage Hoards
are necessarily of a legislative character. The test for determining
these controversies was stated thus at pp. 112 & 113:
" ........ regard must be had to the provisions of the
statutes constituting :the wage boards. If on a scrutiny of
the provisions in regard thereto one can come to the conclusion that they are appointed only with a view to determine the relations between the emplgyers and the employees
as the future in regard to
the
wages
payable in the
employees there would be justification for holding that they
were performing legislative functions.
If,
however,
on a
consideration of all the relevant provisions of the statutes
brini;ing the -.vage boards into existence, it appears that the
powers and procedure exercised by them are assimilated to
those of Industrial Tribunals or their adjudications are
subject to jucJkial review at the hands c..f higher Tribunals
exercising judicial or quassijudicial functions. it cannot be
predicated that these wage boards are exercising legisl.ative
functions.
Whether thev exercise these functions or not is
thus to be determined , by !the relevant provisions of the
statutes incorporating them and it would be impossible to
!av down anv universal rule which would help in the determination of this question."
Havig s:tated that even if on the cons1ruction of the relevant provisions
of the statute the functions performed bv a particular wage board
are nDt of a legislative character. this Court nonetheless observed
that ."the question still remains whether the functions
exerci~l'd by
them are administrative in character or judicial or quasi-judicial in
character, because only in the !utter event would their decisinr1 be
amenable to the writ iurisdidtion or to the "special leave jurisdiction
above referred to." After examining this aspect at pp. 117-118 the
Court said :
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
p. r. r. v. UNION (Jaganmohan Reddy, /,)
5 o 5.
"There is considerable force in these contentions,
but
we do not feel called upon Ito express our final opinion
on this question in view of the conclusions which we have
hereafter reached in regard to the ultra vires character of
the decision of .the Wage Board itself.
We are however
bound to observe that whatever be the character of the
functions performed by the Wage Boards .whether they be
legislative or quasi-judicial, if proper safeguards are adopted
of the nature discussed earlier, e.g., provisions for judicial
review or the adopting of the procedure as in the·case of the
,recommendations of the wage councils in the United King·
dam, or the reports of the advisory committees which come
to be considered by the administrator under the Fair Labour
Standards Act of 1938 in the United States of Amerka,
no objection could ever be urged against the determinations
of the wage boards thus arrived at on the score of the prin•
ciples of natural justice having been violated."
After the decision in the Express Newspapers' case (supra), Parliament, having regard to the observations made therein, amended the
provisions of ;he Act, and b_Y Act 65 of 1962 substituted ss. 8, 9, 101
11, 12 and 13 by new sections 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 3-A. The
learned Solicitor General contends that after these amendments every
person affected was . given an opportunity of hearing.
The Government was not required to give reasons where it was varying the
recommendations; nor was it ne~essary for it to give reasons where
it was accepting the recommendations of the Wage Board, nor did
any of the provisions in ss. 8 to 12 provide for a judicial determination of a right, nor did they lay down any principles to be applied
to the facts for determining the rights of the parties.
On the other
hand, these provisions, according to him, are in general terms which.
indicate the policy and provide merely a general guidance leaving it
to the delegated authority, viz. the Government, a substantial scope
for a policy decision which can only result in the order being a
legislative order.
On this aspect he submitted the propositions
(i)
in the case of a parent law which provides for a judicial determina·
;i
tion of a right it must lay down the necessary principles to be applied
to the facts so that the rights of the parties could be determined; and
(ii) if the parent law in the general terms enunciates the· policy and
provides merely for general guitlance which leaves to the delegated
authority a substantial scope for a policy decision, then the order
is a piece of subordinate legislation and not a judicial order.
In
support of these propositions he has cited
the
deci~ions in The
Edward Mills Co. Ltd., Beawar and Ors. v. The State of Ajmer a11d
Anr(l) dealing with the Minimum Wages Act. 1948; Mis. Bhikusa
Yamasa Kshatriya v. Seminar Ako/a Taluka Bidi Kamgar Union,( 2 )
and the observations of this Court, in the Express Newspapers' case
(supra) at pp. 164 & 165. It is contended that the investigation Ie1ding ,
upto the order does not involve a decision in terms of the existing law.
(I) [!965] I S.C.R. 735.
(2) [1963] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 324.
506
SUPllEME COURT REPOIUS
(1975] 3 S.C.R.
nor is there any requirement of \ietermination of existin~ ri~hts, nor
is the existence of a dispute a condition of the exercise of jurisdiction.
All that is reouired by the Central Government is for it to make an
order in terms of the recommendations or subject to such modifications which the Central Government thinks fit.
It is not a di:cision
between any contending parties, but is largely a policy decision made
within the framework and in the light of the guidance provided by
.the Act.
The learned Advocate for the petitioners on
the
other
hand
contends that the procc:dure laid down in the Act for fixation of the
wages is similar to that laid do!'fn under the Industrial Disputc:s Act,
the award under which Act has been held by this
Court to be aq
award of a Tribunal within the meaning of Art. 136 of the Consti·
tution, accordingly an order made· on the recommendations cou1d be
challenged by an aggrieved party in an appeal to this Court by way
of a special leave.
In so far as the contention that no relief in the writ petition
is
available under Art. 19 is concerned, it is urged that the prayer for
substitution of Shri .Tai Kumar Karmani a shareholder in the first
petitioner company in place of the
deceased A. B.
Nair in
writ
petition No. 27 of 1968 and of Shri K. Narenl'.lra a shareholder
in
the first petitioner company in place of Shri Uma Shankar Dikshit in
writ p~tition No. 40 of 1968 being manifestly just should be granted.
If these prayers are granted, the second petitioners in the respective
two writ petitions can also challenge the impugned order under Art.
19. lt may be mentioned that in the first petition the substitution
is necessitated by the death of the second respondent and in the
<;econd as Shri Uma Shankar Dikshit had been appointed a Central
Minister, another shareholder is sought to be substituted. It is contended on behalf of the second respondent that the those petitions
should not be allowed, nor shoul\:l
the petitioners' Advocate
be
permitted to raise any question of infringement of the right<; conferred under Art. 19. nor is it riclit to say that no question of
limitation arises in the matter of enforcement of fundamental rights.
It is also submitted that even otherwise a shareholder can enforce
only his rights under fhe law and no such infringement can arise in
this case. It appears to us that though it may be that no specific
mention had been made in the petitions of any of the Articles which
are alleged to have been infringed bv the impugned order the facts
stated and the contentions urgecl in the petition entille the petitioners
·to invoke also Art. 19
A shareholoer can challenge the order if
the restriction on his right under Art.
19 (1) (f) is unreasonable.
If the impugned order places a heavy burden on the resources of the
company or the wage has been fixed without taking into consideration the capacitv to pay. or where the higher wage than\ what the
iournalists asked for is fixed without hearing the employer. then that
burden will effect the shareholders also.
In such a case it w111 not
be valid to contend that the right of a shareholder is not infringed.
~~ think the peti•ioners can valirlly challenge the orl:ler under Art.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
·C
D
E
F
G
H
P. T. I. v. UNION (Jagannwh11n Reddy,].)
507
Even it we reject the prayer in the second petition (C.M.P. No.
1034 of 1974 in Writ Petition No. 40 of 1968) as there is nothing to
debar a Central Minister from continuing to be a petitioner and the
petitioners cannot. be denied rel_i~f under. Art.. ~9. Similarly, if we
reject the prayer m the first petition (Wnt Petition .No. ?7 of 196.8)
on a technical plea that the second respondent havmg died no rehef
can be granted under Art. 19, there is nothing to prevent another writ
petition being filed by a shareholder of the first petitioner company,
challengini the impugned order under Art. 19. The rejection of the
prayer, therefor~" will merely prolong the .lit.iga!ion. The argument
that such a, pet1t10n would be barred by hmttat1on cannot be considered unless the circumstances under which a fresh petition has
been filed and the question whether the petitioner has been guilty of
lachcs or triCd to purpose his remedy dili~ently are examined. It may
be that the circumstances: urged for filling the petition late
may
justify it being entertained. In our· view, as the prayer for the sul:>sti·
tution in each of the Writ petitions will further interests o~ justice and
as the balance of convenience would justify granting the petitions, we
accordingly direct the persons named above to be brought on record
in the respective writ petitions as second petitioners.
. Now coming to the merits of the case, the petitioners in writ petiti0n filed by the Press Trust of India (hereinafter ref'crred to as 'the
P. T.I.') complain of violation of Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution inasmuch as the P.T.I. has been discriminated against both
in respect of the classification and in the fixation o! wages based op_
that classification. As regards the classification of jobs, and grouping
of journalists with functional definitions, it is contended that the recommendations were mad(l by the Wage Board without the matters
being referred to it, nor were they based on any case urged by any
of the parties appearing before it. It is also contended that the recommendations of the Wage Board and the consequent decision of
the Central Government are invalid, as the Wage Board has acted
totally against the provisions of s. 10 of the Act by not' taking into
consideration the representations of the P.T.I. either in respect to its
capacity to pay or with reference to the other circumstances relevant
to such wage fixation a& are mentioned in the representations. This
apart, the Wage Board has arbitrarily discriminated against the petitioner in the matter of assessment of gross revenue for the purposes
of classification as also in including it without any _evidence in Class
II instead of in Class Ill. It is further submitted that the Board has
acted in excess of its jurisdiction by awarding to the employees wa11es
higher than what were demanded by them both in: respect of the
scales of pay and increments, that it has not fixed a rational wage
structure dependent on relevant considerations, nor was it based on
the capacity of the industry to pay and that it has erred in classifying
differentlv the P.T.I. and the United News of India-'hereinafter
called 'the U.N.I.'-both national agencies, instead of putting them
in the same category.
. _ . It may be mentioned that .the Press Commission in its report Part I
published in 1954 pointed out that there are two major news agencies,
508
SUPREME COuRT REPORTS
(1975] 3 .!l.C.R.
the P.T.I. and .the United Press of India. It was said that there
A
was a third news agency, namely, Hindustan Samachar, which is not
really comparable to the other two. It. was further pointed out that
the P.T.I. provides three categories of services--'A', 'B', and 'C'-
which are intended to meet the specific requirements of newspapers
of different classes. Tbe 'A' service is the fullest service they provide.
The 'B' service is considerably shorter and is intended to carry 50
per cent. of the 'A' service, and the 'C' service is abbreviated serB
vice and carries only about 25 per cent. In the case of the United
Press •of India the classification of services does not appear to be
regulated by any well-defined lines of demarcation and the main distinction would. appear tcj be between those papers (mainly located in
Calcutta) which take the full "local" coverage that the United Press,
of India provides and others which do not require this special service.
·Another special feature of the United Press of Inilia service h that
C
it can be taken with or without the inclusion of foreign news, the latter
apparently being intended for the convenience of those papers which
take the P.T.I. service and are satisfied with Reuter's coverage of
international events.
The three categories of the P. T.I. service are charged for on the
basis set out below :--
D
'A' Service
'B' Service
Rs. 3,600 per month.
Rs. 2,000 per month.
'C' Servico
Rs. 1,200 per month.
These rates apply to newspapers published in English, the subscription for Indian language newspapers is ham that for the same category of service for English papers.
The Press Commission after examining the working of the P.T.I.
and other news agencies made certain recommendations for an increase in the rate of subscription. This recommendation, it has .been
urged, was made the basis for special classification by the Wage Board
as far as the P.T.I. is concerned. This has been challenged beforn us.
According to the learned Advocate for the petitioners, the P.T.I.
should have been placed in Class III even if the criteria laid down by
the Wage Board was applied. The Wage Board has,
without any
justification or any evidence, put the P.T.I. in a higher classification,
namely, Class ~I.· It is, according to the learned Advocate, idle:
to
draw upon the Press Commission's recommendations that the F'.T.I.
should increase its rates of subscription or to say that if it increases
its subscription it will have the capacity to pay the wages of the.
higher category of Oass II in which it was placed. The contention of
the learned Advocate is that the P.T.I.
has been singled out for
higher categorisation and put in a separate category which is
not
founded on any intelligible differentia which distinguishes the P.T.L
from other news agencies or newspapers. Nor has the differentia any
rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the. Act m1der
which the Wage Board is constituted, because under the Act there
is only one class of "newspaper establishmer.ts" and there is one
definition of the term which under s. 2(d) of the Act means "an establisl\ment und(~r the control of any person
or body
of
persi:ms,
E
F
G
H
..
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
1'. T. l. v. UNiON (Jagu11111ulia11 Reddy,!.)
509
whether incorporated or not, for the production of publication of one
or more newspapers or for conducting any news agency or syndicate."
We do nut think that the definition of "newspaper establislum~nt" can
be drawn on for the purposes of justifying on! y one classification of all
the establishment included in that definition. The definiti'on of the
term "newspaper establishment" is provided for on understanding of
the statutory provisions to facilitate brevity and to avoid all that is
mentioned in the definition being repeated over and over again.
If
the Act itself provides for the basis of classification, namely, the takin,g into consideration the capacity to pay or to any other circumstances which may seem relevant to the person making the representation in relation to· his representation as has been specifically provided
for in s. 10(2), the recomendations and the order made thereon alone
indicate the criteria to be adopted by the Hoard for classifying the
various catergories of news media specified in the definition.
Obviously newspapers and news agencies have different functions. They
have different sources ofl revenue and the services rendered by each
are different.
This broad classification
between
the two
categories may again be sub-divided and sub-classified according to the
capacity of each of the categories.
The Wage Board in its recommendations has stated that for
the
purpose>
of,
fixation of
wages for working journalists, newspapers and news agencies should
be classified in the manner therein provided and that such classificati'im should be based on the gross revenues for the accounting years
1963, 1964 and 1965. The gross revenues of the seven classes into
which the respective news media, that is, both for newspapers
and
for news agency have been divided are as follows :
Class and Gross Revenue :
l
Rs.
200 !akhs and above.
ll Rs.
100 lakhs and above and Jess than Rs. 200 Jakhs.
l ll Rs.
Rs. 50 lakhs and above and less than Rs. 100 lakhs.
IV.
Rs.
25 lakhs and above and less than Rs. 50 Iakhs.
v.
Rs.
12 Jakhs and above and less than Rs. 25 lakhs .
Vl.
Rs.
5 lakhs and above and jess than Rs. J 2 lakhs.
Vil
Rs.
Less than Rs. 5 Iakhs.
Gross revenue in the case of newspaper has been defined by the
Buard as the entire revenue earned by the establishment front one
centre, and 1n the case of a group the entire revenue of a unit is to
consist 0£ its circulation and advertisement revenue and that part of
the rest of the revenue which is proportionate to its circulation and
advertisement revenue. In the case of news agency the entire revenue
of the establishment by whatever sources earned by the establish- ·
mcnts has to be taken as the gross revenue.
It is submitted that there is discrimination between newspapers and
news agencies because even the earning& which have n·othing to do
with the· activities of the news agency as such under the. above criterhi
is incl.uded in the gross revenue.
In this connection it is said that the
P.T.T. has built a buil<l'ing by taking loan from the Government
t 8:--.423SCI I 75
.. 510
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1975] 3 s.c.R.
and has been earnin~~ revenu:: from rent~. Even this income which
has nothing to do with news agency business has been taken into
consideration. At any rate, the classification of the newspapers and
news agencies which were being based on average revenues of the
three accounting years 1963, 1964 and 1965 (sec para 4.3) has not
been kept in view by the Wage Board in the case ofl the P.T.I., thus
discriminating it from other newspapers and news agencies to which
the above crit1:ria laid by it was applied. It was admitted by the Wage
Board in para 3 .9 that, "although the classification of the news agencies is the same as that of the daily newspapers, on account o:f the
special position enjoyed by P.T.L, as a national agency it is placed in
class 11. Alth'Ough its pres'ent revenue at the end of 1965 is about
Rs. 85 lakhs, as a national agency, P,T.1. has to cater even for top
clas.s papers. Besides the aspects of objectivity, speed, accuracy and
integrity urc the speci.ul characteristics which mark the work of
working journalists in. a news agency". Again, in para 3.33 although
i,t is shown that the average net profit of the P.T.I. for three years,
i.e. 1963-1965 is Rs. 3.87 lakhs, the financial burden on aecomlt of
the implementation of the final pl'oposals of the Wage Board would be
Rs. 6.78 lakhs which would clearly indicate that it has not the ~:apa
city to bear the burden of the Wage Board's recommendation. The
Wage Board, however, in para 3.34 has given the reas·ons why it is
treating the U.N.I. differently from the P.T.I. because that is a new
concern hardly 8 years: old and has still got to build up its business.
As far as the P.T.I. is concerned, it observed that there is recurring
burden of Rs. 7 lakhs, and havir.g regard to the aver[lge profit for
1963, 1964 and 1965 being Rs. 3.87 lakhs, the deficit on account of
arrears would be t:o the tune of Rs. 3.5 lakhs. In spite of this recognition, the Board says that "it should not be difficult for the P.T.I. to
make up this deficiency by increasing the rate of subscription and also
by tightening up the organisation".
It is this classification of the P.T.J. that has been attacked as being
discriminatory and arbitrary and is said to be without any basis. In
so far as the U.N.I. is concerned, there is no doubt that it fats under
Class V but, as stated already, there can be no doubt that the service
rendered by the P.T.I. is certainly higher. Similarly, newspapers and
news agencies arc in a different class.