# 2 S.C.R. 393 ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

- **Citation:** [2014] 2 S.C.R. 393
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2014-02-07
- **Bench:** P. Sathasivam, RANJAN GOGOi, Shiva Kirti Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/2-s-c-r-393-abp-pvt-ltd-anr-v-union-of-india-ors-29850
- **Pages:** 66

## Headnote

CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950:
A
B
c
Arls. 14, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) - Constitutional validity of
Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees
(Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,
1955 and Amendment Act of 1974 - Held: In Express
Newspaper, the Constitution Bench has held the 1955 Act as 0
intra vires the Constitution - The Act being a beneficent
legislation intended to regulate conditions of service of working
journalists does not have the effect of taking away or abridging
the freedom of speech and expression of petitionersnewspapers and does not, therefore, infringe Arl. 19(1)(a) of
the Constitution - Nor could it be held to be violative of Arl. E
19(1 )(g) of the Constitution in view of the test of
reasonableness - Challenge as to the singling out of
newspaper industry per se was rejected by the Constitution
Bench holding it to be a class by itself- The 1974 amendment
Act brought the other employees of newspaper industry (i.e.
F
non-working journalists) into the ambit of the Act and extended
the benefits of the Act to them - Thus, the same is also covered
as per the reasoning of the Constitution Bench decision -
Mere passage of time by itself would not result in invalidation
of the Act and its object -- Challenge as to the vires of the Act G
on the premise of it being ultra vires the Constitution and
violative of fundamental rights is wholly unfounded, baseless
and completely untenable.
393
H
394
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 2 S.C.R.
A
WORKING
JOURNALISTS
AND
OTHER
B
NEWSPAPER EMPLOYEES (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE)
AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1955:
ss. 9 and 13-C - Government of India Notification dated
11. 11. 2011 notifying the recommenda.tions of Justice Majithia
Wage Boards - Held: As regards constitution of Wage Boards,
merely because a person had been in the employment of the
Government, he does not cease to become "independent" for
the purposes of being a member of the Committee to
recommend the fixing of wages - AL-gation of bias against
C
independent members of Wage Boards, being based merely
on their past status, is entirely baseless in law and amounts
to imputing motives - Administrative law - Legal bias.
ss. 9 and 13 - Composition of Wage Boards - Held: To
o have common representatives of the employers on the two
Wage Boards, four independent members, including the
Chairman being common for both the Wage Boards, and
separate set of members representing working journalists and
members representing non-journalist newspaper employees
E
in no way affects the interest of the employers and the
challenge of the petitioners in this regard is unfounded.
s.11(1) r/w s.10(1) - Procedure followed by Wage Boards
- Held: Wage Board has special powers to regulate its own
procedure -- As long as it follows the principles of natural
F
justice and fairness, its functioning cannot be called into
question on the ground of irregularity in the procedure - In the
instant case, detailed questionnaires were issued to
newspaper establishments, notices inviting representations
were published in 125 newspapers -- Wage Boards
G
conducted a series of meetings and gave ample opportunities
to the employers to make their point of view known to the
Board by written and oral representatioRs-=- Court is satisfied
that the decision making process stands valid - The.
petitioners, having eluded to submit the data, cannot be
H allowed to take advantage of their own wrong and impugn the
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
395
recommendations of Wage Boards - Further, no prejudice is
A
caused to employers by classifying them in eight categories
on the basis of gross tum over - There is no irregularity in the
procedure adopted by Wage Boards.
s. 10(2) and 12 - Recommendations of Wage Boards and
8
its acceptance by Central Government - Held: capacity of
newspaper industry to pay is one of the essential
circumstances to be taken into consideration while fixing rates
of wages under the Act - Comprehensive and detailed st

## Text

_Characters 0–39,719 of 118,686. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39719 for what follows._

[2014) 2 S.C.R. 393
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 246 of 2011 etc.)
FEBRUARY 07, 2014
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJAN GOGOi AND SHIVA
KIRTI SINGH, JJ.)
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950:
A
B
c
Arls. 14, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) - Constitutional validity of
Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees
(Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,
1955 and Amendment Act of 1974 - Held: In Express
Newspaper, the Constitution Bench has held the 1955 Act as 0
intra vires the Constitution - The Act being a beneficent
legislation intended to regulate conditions of service of working
journalists does not have the effect of taking away or abridging
the freedom of speech and expression of petitionersnewspapers and does not, therefore, infringe Arl. 19(1)(a) of
the Constitution - Nor could it be held to be violative of Arl. E
19(1 )(g) of the Constitution in view of the test of
reasonableness - Challenge as to the singling out of
newspaper industry per se was rejected by the Constitution
Bench holding it to be a class by itself- The 1974 amendment
Act brought the other employees of newspaper industry (i.e.
F
non-working journalists) into the ambit of the Act and extended
the benefits of the Act to them - Thus, the same is also covered
as per the reasoning of the Constitution Bench decision -
Mere passage of time by itself would not result in invalidation
of the Act and its object -- Challenge as to the vires of the Act G
on the premise of it being ultra vires the Constitution and
violative of fundamental rights is wholly unfounded, baseless
and completely untenable.
393
H
394
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 2 S.C.R.
A
WORKING
JOURNALISTS
AND
OTHER
B
NEWSPAPER EMPLOYEES (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE)
AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1955:
ss. 9 and 13-C - Government of India Notification dated
11. 11. 2011 notifying the recommenda.tions of Justice Majithia
Wage Boards - Held: As regards constitution of Wage Boards,
merely because a person had been in the employment of the
Government, he does not cease to become "independent" for
the purposes of being a member of the Committee to
recommend the fixing of wages - AL-gation of bias against
C
independent members of Wage Boards, being based merely
on their past status, is entirely baseless in law and amounts
to imputing motives - Administrative law - Legal bias.
ss. 9 and 13 - Composition of Wage Boards - Held: To
o have common representatives of the employers on the two
Wage Boards, four independent members, including the
Chairman being common for both the Wage Boards, and
separate set of members representing working journalists and
members representing non-journalist newspaper employees
E
in no way affects the interest of the employers and the
challenge of the petitioners in this regard is unfounded.
s.11(1) r/w s.10(1) - Procedure followed by Wage Boards
- Held: Wage Board has special powers to regulate its own
procedure -- As long as it follows the principles of natural
F
justice and fairness, its functioning cannot be called into
question on the ground of irregularity in the procedure - In the
instant case, detailed questionnaires were issued to
newspaper establishments, notices inviting representations
were published in 125 newspapers -- Wage Boards
G
conducted a series of meetings and gave ample opportunities
to the employers to make their point of view known to the
Board by written and oral representatioRs-=- Court is satisfied
that the decision making process stands valid - The.
petitioners, having eluded to submit the data, cannot be
H allowed to take advantage of their own wrong and impugn the
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
395
recommendations of Wage Boards - Further, no prejudice is
A
caused to employers by classifying them in eight categories
on the basis of gross tum over - There is no irregularity in the
procedure adopted by Wage Boards.
s. 10(2) and 12 - Recommendations of Wage Boards and
8
its acceptance by Central Government - Held: capacity of
newspaper industry to pay is one of the essential
circumstances to be taken into consideration while fixing rates
of wages under the Act - Comprehensive and detailed study
has been carried out by Wage Boards by collecting all relevant C
materials
for the
purpose of wage
revision
-
Recommendations are arrived at after weighing the pros and
cons of various methods in the process and principles of wage
revision in modern era - It cannot be held that the wage
structure recommended by Majithia Wage Boards is
unreasonable - As regards the issue of wages for News · D
Agencies to be fixed separately and independently, in view
of limited jurisdiction to look into this aspect, it would be
inapposite for the Court to question the decision of specialized
board on merits especially when the Board was constituted
for this sole purpose - Besides, it is the prerogative of Central
E
- Government to accept or reject the recommendations of Wage
Boards - There is no scope for hearing the oarties once again
by Central Government while accepting or modifying the
recommendations, except that modifications are of such
nature which alter the character of the recommendations and
F
such modification is likely to affect the parties -
Recommendations of Majithia Wage Boards are valid in law
and there is no valid ground for interference under Art.32 of
the Constitution.
Implementation of recommendations of Wage Boards -
Held: Wages as revised/determined shall be payable from
11.11.2011, when Government of India notified the
recommendations of the Majithia Wage Boards, and as
directed· in the judgment.
G
H
396
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 2 S.C.R.
A
The Government of India, constituted two Boards on
24.5.2007, one for the Working Journalists and the other
for non-Journalist Newspaper and News Agencies
employees u/ss 9 and 13-C of the Working Journalists
and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service)
B and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (the Act). The
Chairman and six of the remaining nine members were
common to both the Wage Boards. The remaining three
members each representing the Working Journalists and
non-Journalist Newspaper employees had been
c nominated by their respective Unions. Justice Gurbax
Rai Majithia, a retired Judge of the High Court of Mumbai,
took over the charge as Chairman of the two Boards on
04.03.2009. The recommendations submitted by
Majithithia Wage Boards, were accepted by the Central
0 Government and notified on 11.11.2011. The petitioners
(management of various newspapers) filed the instant
writ petitions, challenging and praying for quashing of
the notification dated 11.11.2011 on the grounds: (i)
improper Constitution of the Wage Boards; (ii) irregularity·
in the procedure adopted by Wage Boards; and (iii) Wage
E Boards overlooked the relevant aspects and considered
extraneous factors while drafting the recomm.endations.
Constitutional validity of the Act was also challenged on
twin grounds: Firstly, the Act infringed the fundamental
rights guaranteed under Arts. 14 and 19 of the
F Constitution; and secondly, the Act had become obsolete
with the passage of time. The petitioners also challenged
the vires of the Amendment Act, 1974 on the ground that
extending the benefit of the Act to employees other than
working journalists was against the object that was
G sought to be achieved by the original Act since the
benefits to other newspaper employees had no rational
nexus between the differentia and the object sought to
be achieved.
H
Dismissing the petitions, the Court
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 397
HELD:
Constitutional validity of the Act:
1.1 In Express Newspaper (P) Ltd.* a Constitution
Bench of this Court has held the 1955 Act to be intra vires
A
the Constitution; and the challenge to the Act as being
8
violative of Arts. 19(1) (a), 19(1) (g) and Art. 14 was held
unsustainable. It has been held that the impugned Act,
judged by its provisions, being a beneficent legislation
intended to regulate the conditions of service of the
working journalists does not have the effect of taking
C
away or abridging the freedom of speech and expression
of the petitioners and does not, therefore, infringe Art.
19(1 )(a) of the Constitution. Nor could it be held to be
violative of Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution in view of the
test of reasonableness laid down by this Court.
D
Challenge as to the singling out of the newspaper
industry per se was rejected by the Constitution Bench
and the newspaper industry was held to be a class by
itself. [para 17-19 and 21] [419-F; 422-C, E-H; 423-A-C;
431-F-G]
E
*Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India 1959
SCR 12 =AIR 1958 SC 578 -- relied on.
Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd. vs. Union of India
2004 (2) SCR 1098 = (2004) 11 SCC 526 - referred to.
F
John Val/amattom vs. Union of India 2003 (1) Suppl.
SCR 638 = (2003) 6 SCC 611; Malpe Vishwanath Acharya
vs. State of Maharashtra 1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 717 = (1998)
2 SCC 1; and Indian Handicrafts Emporium vs. Union of G
India 2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 43 = (2003) 7 SCC 589 - cited.
Challenge qua Amendment Act, 1974
1.2 The 1974 amendment Act brought the other
employees of the newspaper industry (i.e. non-working
H
398
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014) 2 S.C.R.
A journalists) into the ambit of the Act and extended the
benefits of the Act to them. Thus, the same is also
covered as per the reasoning of the Constitution Bench
decision of this Court. Therefore, the challenge as to the
Amendment Act, 1974 stands disallowed. [para 21] [431B G-H]
1.3 The realm of Art. 14 of the Constitution is to be
appreciated in the light of the interest of both employers
and the employees. This Court is opting for not to
interfere for two reasons: firstly, the petitioners cannot
C espouse the grievance of those employees working in
the electronic media for non-inclusion and, more
particularly, when those employees are not before this .
Court. Secondly, the fact that similar benefits are not
extended to the employees of other similar industry will
D not result in invalidation of benefit given to the employees
of press industry. Recalling that media industry is still an
upcoming sector unlike the press industry, the scope for
potential policies in future cannot be overruled. [para 2324] [432-G; 433-A-C]
E ·
1.4 It is true that newspaper industry, with the advent.
of electronic media, continues to face greater challenges
similar to the ones as observed by the Press Commission
and noted in the Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. Thus, the
contention of the petitioners that though the newspaper
F industry may be growing, the growth of the electronic
media is relatively exponential, in fact, substantiates the
very necessity of why a wage board for working
journalists and other newspaper employees of the
newspaper industry should exist. [para 29] [434-E-F]
G
1.5 As regards the second ground of challenge, i.e.,
the Act over the passage of time has outlived its utility, it
is cogent opinion of this Court that mere passage of time
by itself would not result in the invalidation of the Act and
its object. The validity once having been upheld by the
H Constitution Bench of this Court in Express Newspapers
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 399
(P) Ltd., the same cannot be again challenged on the
A
ground alleed. [para 25] [433-D-E]
Motor General Traders vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1984
(1) SCR 594 = (1984) 1 SCC 222 and Ratan Arya vs. State
of Tamil Nadu 1986 (2) SCR 596 = (1986) 3 SCC 385 - held
inapplicable.
B
1.6 This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the
challenge as to the vires of the Act on the premise of it
being ultra vires the Constitution and violative of
fundamental rights is wholly unfounded, baseless and
C
completely untenable. [para 28] [434-D]
Constitution of the Wage Boards:
2.1 The Wage Boards constituted ulss 9 and 13C of
the Act are required to be comprised of 1 O members i.e.
Di
one Chairman, three independent members, three
representatives for employers and three representatives
for employees. As regards the petitioners' main ground of
challenge to appointment as Member-Secretary of the
_ Wage Board, of the former Secretary of Ministry of Labour
E
and Employment, Government of India on the ground of
his independence, suffice it to say that merely because a
person had been in the employment of the Government,
he does not cease to become "independ~nt" for the
purposes of being a member of the Committee to
F
recommend the fixing of wages. This Court is satisfied that
the said official was an independent member of the Board
and cannot be considered to be "biased" in any manner.
[para 30, 31and 33] [434-G-H; 435-C-D, E-F; 437-C]
State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Narayana Velur Beedi
G
Manufacturing Factory 1973 (3) SCR 755 = (1973) 4 SCC 178
-- relied on.
2.2 The petitioners' allegations against another
member, who was an experienced journalist and had
H
400
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 2 S.C.R.
A been associated with various journalistic institutions in
his long journalistic career, are only vague and general
aHegations and no specific allegation that he acted in a
manner that was biased against the employers has been
leveled by the petitioners. It is well-settled that mere
8 apprehension of bias is not enough and there must be
cogent evidence available on record to come to the
conclusion. [para 34-35] [437-D, E-F]
Kumaon Manda/ Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. Girja Shankar
Pant 2000 (4) Suppl. SCR 248 = (2001) 1 SCC 182; and
C State of Punjab vs. V.K. Khanna 2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 200 =
(2001) 2 sec 330 - referred to.
2.3 The petitioners' allegation of bias against
independent members of the Wage Boards, being based
merely on their past status, is entirely baseless in law and
D amounts to imputing motives. Further, the petitioners
have nowhere established or even averred that the
independent members are guilty of legal bias. [para 37]
[438-E]
E
Perspective Publications vs. State of Maharashtra (1969)
2 SCR 779 relied on.
2.4 Besides, the petitioners had challenged the
constitution of the Wage Board before the High Court of
Delhi which had declined to grant interim relief. The said
F order attained finality as the petitioners did not choose
to challenge it before this Court. Thereafter, the
petitioners having participated in the proceedings and
acquiesced themselves with the proceedings of the
Board, they cannot be allowed to challenge the same at
G this stage after the recommendations by the Wage
Boards had been notified by the Central Government.
[para 38] [438-G-H; 439-A-B]
2.5 On perusal of the materials available, this Court
is satisfied that the Wage Boards have functioned in a
H fully balanced manner. [para 38] [438-F-G]
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 401
2.6 With regard to the petitioners contention that two
A
separate Wage Boards ought to have been constituted
instead of a common wage board, it is significant to note
that the Financial Memorandum accompanying the
Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and
Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Bill, 1974
specifically states that "the intention is to constitute
Wage Boards under s. 9 and proposed s. 13C as far as
possible at the same time and to have a common
Chairman and a common Secretariat for both the
Boards", and accordingly, Palekar Tribunal (1980),
Bachawat Wage Board (1989) and Manisana Wage Board
(2000) constituted after 1974 amendment were all
common Boards/Tribunal for both working journalists
and non-journalists. Though the members representing
B
c
the employers were common, they were not incapacitated
in any manner. They had two votes as they represented
the employers in both the Boards. To have common
representatives of the employers on the two Wage
Boards is expected to be favorable to the employers as
D
.·they can make a fair assessment of the requirements of E
the working journalists and non-journalist newspaper
employees of the newspaper industry as a whole. [para
40-41] [439-E-H; 440~B]
2. 7 However, as the two Wage Boards have separate
entities meant for working journalists and non-journalist
F
newspaper employees, there cannot be common
representatives who can protect the interest and represent
working journalists as well as non-journalist newspaper
employees. Therefore, members representing working
journalists were nominated to the Wage Board for the
G
working journalists. Similarly, members representing nonjournalist newspaper employees were nominated to the
Wage Board for non-journalist newspaper employees. For
administrative convenience, four independent members,
including the Chairman were common for both the Wage
H
402.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 2 S.C.R. -
A Boards. In the cogent view of this Court, this arrangement
in no way affects the interest of the employers and the
challenge of the petitioners in this regard is unfounded.
[para 41] [440-C-E]
8 Procedure followed by Majithia Wage Boards:
3.1 Under s. 11 (1) of the Act, Wage Board has special
powers to regulate its own procedure. It is not obligatory
for the Wage Board to follow the exact procedure of the
earlier Wage Boards and as such there is no requirement
C in law to follow a strictly laid down procedure in its
functioning. Besides, as long as it follows the principles
of natural justice and fairness, its functioning cannot be
called into question on the ground of irregularity in the
procedure. [para 43] [441-D-E]
D
._E
3.2 A detailed questionnaire was issued to
newspaper establishments on 24.07.2007. Several
attempts were made by the Wage Boards to get the
relevant information from the employers but many of the
petitioners did not give financial data; they abstained
from attending the Board's proceedings. Regular follow·
up with the employers was made and series of letters
were issued to collect financial information. Apart from
the questionnaire, notices inviting representation as per
F s. 10(1) of the Act were published in 125 newspapers.
Further, on 05.07.2010, summons were issued to around
one hundred and forty stake holders and they were given
final chance to submit the information. In addition to this,
a two page simplified questionnaire was also issued on
02.03.2010. Thus, the procedure adopted by the Wage
G Boards did, in fact, give ample opportunities to the
stakeholders to submit representations and financial
data. However, many of the petitioners have never
bothered to attend the proceedings of the Wage Board
and did not submit financial data. It was only upon much
H effort and repeated requests that the data in respect of
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 403
66 establishments could be collected and out of this, the A
data of only 40 establishments was found useful by the
Wage Board. Besides, these 40 establishments are
representatives of the different class of newspaper
establishments that are carrying on business in the
country and in addition detailed submissions by B
representative groups such as the Indian Newspaper
Society (INS) were also considered. Thus, it can certainly
be construed that these representative bodies presented
an overview of the whole newspaper industry, apart from
the information collected from the individual c
establishments. [para 44-46 and 48] [441-F; 442-A, B-D,
F-H; 443-A; 445-D-E]
3.3 It is evident that the Wage Boards conducted a
series of meetings and gave ample opportunities to the
employers. The employers were given opportunity of D
both written and oral representations to make theii-. point
of view known to the Board and consequently, this ;Court
is satisfied that the decision making process stands
valid. The petitioners, having eluded to submit the data,
cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong E
and impugn the recommendations of the Wage Board~.
· Further, no prejudice is caused to employers by
classifying them in eight categories on the basis of gross
turnover. [para 50 and 51] [449-B-C, F; 450-B]
F
3.4 After having exhaustively gone through the
record
of
proceeding.s
and
various
written
communications, this Court is fully satisfied that the
Wage Boards proceedings have been conducted and
carried out in a legitimate approach and no decision of G
the Wage Board is perceived to having been taken
unilaterally or arbitrarily. Rather all decisions have been
reached in a coherent manner in the presence of all the
members of Wage Board after having processed various
statistics and there is no irregularity in the procedure
H
404
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 2 S.C.R.
A
adopted by the Wage Boards. [para 53]
B
Majithia Wage Boards did not overlook the relevant
aspects nor did it consider extraneous factors while
drafting the recommendations: [450-H; 451-A-C]
4.1 In Express Newspaper (P) Ltd, this Court has held
that the capacity of the newspaper industry to pay is one
of the essential circumstances to be taken into
consideration while fixing rates of wages under the Act.
Consequently, s. 10(2) of the Act was inserted which
C gives the statutory recognition to the requirement of
taking into consideration the capacity of the employer to
pay. [para 55] [451-E, G]
4.2 Chapter XIV, titled Capacity to pay of the
D Newspaper industry (A Financial Assessment) of the
Justice Majithia Report, elaborately discusses on the
aspect of capacity to pay. After perusing the relevant
documents, this Court is satisfied that comprehensive
and detailed study has been carried out by the Wage
E
Board by collecting all the relevant material information
for the
purpose of the
wage
revision.
The
recommendations are arrived at after weighing the pros
and cons of various methods in the process and
principles of the wage revision in the modern era. It
cannot be held that the wage structure recommended by
F
the Majithia Wage Board is unreasonable. [para 56 and
59] [451-G-H; 453-E-F]
5.1 As regards the issue of wages for News Agencies
to be fixed separately and independently, suffice it to say
G that this Court has a limited jurisdiction to look into this
aspect. Interference is allowed to a limited extent to
examine the question as to whether the Wage Board has
considered the capacity of the News Agencies to pay. It
would be inapposite for this Court tC' question the
H decision of the specialized board on merits especially
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 405
when the Board was constituted for this sole purpose. A
[para 60 and 62] [453-H; 454-C-D]
5.2 Regarding variable pay recommended by the
Majithia Wage Board, it categorized "basic pay" and
"variable pay" separately. The concept of "variable pay"
is not newly introduced. The Wage Boards have followed
B
well-settled norms while making recommendations about
variable pay. Further, the explanation to s. 2(eee) which
defines "wages", specifically includes within the term
"wages" "new allowances", if any, of any description
fixed from time to time. Therefore, the Wage Board was c
•well within its jurisdiction to recommend payment of
'variable pay'. The concept of 'variable pay' contained in
the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay
Commission has been incorporated into the Wage Board
recommendations only to ensure that the wages of the 0
newspaper employees are at par with those employees
working
in
other Government sectors.
Such
incorporation was made by the Majithia Wage Board after
careful consideration, in order to ensure equitable
treatment to employees of newspaper establishments,
· and it was well within its rights to do so. [para 63-65] [454E
E; 455-C-D, F-G]
5.3 As regards the Wage Board recommendations to
grant of 100% neutralization of dearness allowance and
categorization of HRA and Transport Allowance into X,
Y and Z category regions, this Court is satisfied that the
F
Wage Boards followed certain well laid down principles
and norms while making recommendations. [para 67]
[456-B-C, D]
5.4 Section 12 of the Act deals with the powers of
Central Government to enforce recommendations of the G
Wage Board. It is the prerogative of the Central
Government to accept o~ reject the recommendations of
the Wage Boards. There is no scope for hearing the
parties once again by the Central Government while
accepting or modifying the recommendations, except H
406
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2014] 2 S.C.R.
A
that the modifications are of such nature which alter the
character of the recommendations and such modification
is likely to affect the parties. The mere fact that the
Government has not accepted a few recommendations
will not automatically affect the validity of the entire
B
report. [para 69-70] [456-H; 457-A; 458-A-C]
6. This Court holds that the recommendations of the
Wage Boards are valid in law, based on genuine and
acceptable considerations and there is no valid ground
for interference under Art. 32 of the Constitution. The
C wages as revised/determined shall be payable from
11.11.2011, when the Government of India notified the
recommendations of the Majithia Wage Boards, and as
directed in the judgment. [para 71 and 73] [458-D-E, F]
D
E
F
G
H
Case Law Reference:
1959 SCR 12
relied on
para 14
2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 638 cited
para 15
1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 717 cited
para 15
2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 43
cited
para 15
2004 (2) SCR 1098
referred to
para 20
1984 (1) SCR 594
held inapplicable Para 25
1986 (2) SCR 596
held inapplicable Para 25
1973 (3) SCR 755
relied on
para 32
2000 (4) Suppl. SCR 248 referred to
Para 35
2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 200 relied on
para 37
(1969) 2 SCR 779
relied on
para 37
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : UNDER ARTICLE 32
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 246 of 2011.
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF !NOIA & ORS. 407
WITH
W.P. (Civil) No. 382, 384, 386, 408, 510, 538, 514, 546 of
2011, 87 of 2012, 264, 315 of 2012,817 of 2013.
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 252 of 2012 in W.P. (C) No. 538
of 2011.
A
B
Mohan Prasaran, S.G., Anil B. Divan, K.K. Venugopal,
Aman Lekhi, P.P. Rao, S.S. Ramdas, Bijendra Chahar and
Colin Gonzalves, Jayant Kumar Mehta, Ms. Neelima Tripathi,
Sukant Vikram, G.V.S. Jagannadha Rao, Anuj Kapoor, Gopal
Jain, R.N. Karanjawala, Manik Karanjawala, Nandini Gore, Aditi
C
Bhatt, Neha Khandelwal, Avijit Deb, Kaushik Laik, Tahira
Karanjawala (for Karanjawala & Co.), Akil Sibal, Trishala
Kulkarni, Oebmalya Banerjee, Dilpreet Singh, Kartik Bhatnagar,
Jatin Mongia, Rohit Bhatt (for Karanjawala & Co.), K. Datta,
Manish Srivastava, Atul Singh, Ashish Verma, Rahul Malhotra,
Abhay Kumar, Diggaj Pathak, Parijat Kishore, Shanta Kumar
D
V. Mahale, Pradeep Sawkar, Harish S.R. Hebbar, Rajesh
Mahale, Ajay Choudhary, Ankit R.Kothari, Ajay Singh, Sunil
Dogra, Aditya Verma, S. Lakshmi, Rohit Bhat, Hari Shankar
K., Nachiket Joshi, Anil Shrivastav, Manoj Goel, Shuvodeep
Roy, Birender Kr. Mishra, Shyam Lal, Abhinav Singh, Alok K.
Prasad, Poonam Atey, Vishwanath Bahuguna, P.1. Jose, Gopal
Jain, Anuj Dhir, Ranjit Raut, Kaushik Laik, Bina Gupta, B.K. Pal,
E.C. Agrawala, D.L. Chidanand, Sukhbeer Kaur Bajwa, Ashwin
Kumar D.S., Aditi Anil Dani, Yasir Rauf, Shreekant N. Terdal,
Juno Rahman, Jyoti Mendiratta, Parmanand Pandey, E. Gopal,
Raj Kisor Choudhary, Pamarty Venkataramana, Ajay Kumar
Jain, Pranav Ranjan, Praneet Ranjan, Hari Shankar K., B.K. Pal,
Thampan Thomas, N.M. Varghese, Tessy Varghese, K.V.
Mohan for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
P. SATHASIVAM, CJI. 1. These writ petitions, under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India, have been filed by the
petitioners (management of various newspapers) praying for
a declaration that the Working Journalists and Other
Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and
E
F
G
H
408
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 2 S.C.R.
A Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act') is ultra
vires as it infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed under
Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
The petitioners further prayed for quashing of the notification
dated 11.11.2011 issued by the Central Government accepting
B the recommendations made by Justice Majithia Wage Boards
for Working Journalists and Non-Journalist Newspaper and
News Agency Employees.
Factual Background:
2. It is pertinent to give a vivid background of the case
C before we advent to decide the issue at hand. Way back in
1955, the Government of India enacted the impugned Act to
regulate the conditions of service of Working Journalists and
in 1974 via amendment for other Newspaper Employees
employed in newspaper establishments. For the purpose of
0
fixing or revising the rates of wages of employees in newspaper
establishments, the Central Government is empowered under
Sections 9 and 13C of the Act to constitute two Wage Boards,
viz., one for the working journalists and otherfor non-journalist
newspaper employees respectively. Likewise, the Act also
specifies that the Central Government shall, as and when
E necessary, constitute these Wage Boards. The composition of
F
G
the Wage Boards is specified, as mentioned below:-
(a) Three persons representing employers in relation to ·
Newspaper Establishments;
(b) Three persons representing working journalists for
Wage Board under Section 9 and three persons
representing non-journalist Newspaper Employees for
Wage Board under Section 13C of the Act;
(c) Four independent persons, one of whom shall be a
person who is, or has been a Judge of the High Court or
the Supreme Court, and who shall be appointed by the
Government as the Chairman thereof.
3. It is relevant to note that since 1955, six Wage Boards
have been constituted for working journalists and four Wage
H Boards for non-journalist newspaper employees in order to fix
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
409
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
or revise the rates of wages. The relevant details of the
A
preceding Wage Boards are as under:-
(i) Divatia Wage Board
Date of
Date of
Challenge
B
'Appointment
Acceptance
02.05.1956
10.05.1957 In Express Newspaper (P)
Ltd. vs. Union of India 1959
SCR 12 the decision of the
Divatia Wage Board as well c
as the constitutional validity of
the. Act was challenged
before this Court. This Court
set aside the decision of the
Wage Board dt. 30.04.1957 D
on the ground that it did not
take into account the capacity
of the industry to pay. As a
result of this decision, an
ordinance dated 14.06.1958
E
was promulgated which
provided
for
the
establishment of a Special
Committee
for
making
recommendations to the
F
Central Government in regard
to the rates of wages to be
fixed for working journalists.
Later, in September 1958,
the Working Journalists
(Fixation of Rates of Wages)
G
Act, 1958 was passed by the
Parliament.
H
410
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2014] 2 S.C.R.
A
(ii) Shinde Wage Board
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
Date of
Appointment
12.11.1963/
Date of
Challenge
Acceptance
27.10.1967 In Press Trust of India vs.
Union of India & Ors. (1974)
4 SCC 638, this COlJrt struck
down the recommendations of
the second Wage Board
insofar as PTI was concerned
as unreasonable and far in
excess of what the employees
themselves were demanding
and beyond the financial
capacity of the establishment
and hence violative of the
fundamental rights guaranteed
under
Part
111
of
the
Constitution.
(iii) Palekar Wage Board
Date of
Appointment
11.06.1975/
Date of
Challenge
Acceptance
26.12.1980 The constitution of Wage
06.02.1976
Board
was
challenged on 20.07.1981 on
the
ground
of lack· of
independence. In December
1977,
the
employers'
representatives wrote to the
Central Government that they
were withdrawing from the
Wage Board as desired by the
organizations. The government
made several efforts to resolve
the dead lock. On 28.08.1978,
Writ Petitions were filed by the
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
411
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
Indian and Eastern Newspaper
A
Society and Others in the High
Court at Bombay challenging
the constitution of the Wage
Boards. In order to find a
solution,
the
President
B
promulgated on 31.01.1979
the Working Journalists and
other Newspaper Employees
(Conditions of Service) and
Miscellaneous Provisions c
(Amendment), Ordinance
1979. This ordinance provided
for the constitution of a Tribunal
consisting of a person who is/
or has been a Judge of the
0
High Court or Supreme Court
in place of each. such Board
and the abolition of such
Boards upon the constitution of
such Tribunals and for the
continuance of the interim
wages
notified
by
the
Government after taking into
account the recommendations
of such Boards.
E
(iv) Bachawat Wage Board
F
Date of
Date of
Challenge
Appointment
Acceptance
17.07.1985
31.08.198~
The
award
was
challenged in Indian
G
Express Newspapers
(Pvt.) Ltd. and Ors. vs.
Union of India & Ors.
1995 Supp (4) sec
758.
H
412
SUPRE;v1E COURT REPORTS
[2014] 2 S.C.R.
A
(v) Manisana Wage Board
B
c
D
E
F
G
Date of
Date of
Challenge
Appointment
Acceptance
09.09.1994
5.12.2000/
This Wage Board's award
15.12.2000
was challenged in
by Notification Karnataka and Delhi High
Court. The Court while
deciding the challenge
struck down the award on
the ground that the proviso
to Section 12(2) was not
followed. However, despite
the Manisana Award being
struck down it was
implemented by all the
newspaper establishments.
(vi) Narayana Kurup Wage Board - Majithia Wage
Board from 04.03.2009
Date of
Date of
Challenge
Appointment
Acceptance
24.05.2007
31.12.2010
With a slight modification,
the government notified it on
11.11.2011. Its report is
accepted and impugned in
these
proceedings
on
various asserted grounds.
Constitution of Justice Majithia Wage Boards
4. The Government constituted two Boards on 24.05.2007,
one for the Working Journalists and the other for Non-Journalist
Newspaper Employees under Sections 9 and 13C of the Act
under the Chairmanship of Dr. Justice Narayana Kurup. The
H Chairman and six of the remaining nine members were
ASP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF !NOIA & ORS. 413
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
common to both the Wage Boards. The remaining three
A
members each representing the Working Journalists and NonJournalist Newspaper Employees had been nominated by their
respective Unions. The Wage Boards were given three years'
duration to submit their Reports to the Central Government.
5. However, due to sudden change of events, Dr. Justice
B
K. Narayana Kurup, the Chairman of the aforesaid Wage
Boards submitted his resignation effective from 31.07.2008
after completing more than one year's tenure. Subsequently,
Justice Gurbax Rai Majithia, a retired judge of the High Court
C
of Mumbai was appointed as the common Chairman of the two
Wage Boards for Working Journalists and other Newspaper
Employees who took over the charge on 04.03.2009. Another
significant change in the composition of the Wage Boards
occurred due to sudden demise of Shri Madan Phadnis
represenUng the All India Newspaper Employees Federation,
who was a member of the Wage Board for Non-Journalist
Newspaper Employees. In his place, Shri M.C. Narasimhan, as
nominated by the same Federation, was substituted as
member of the Board for Non-Journalist Newspaper Employees.
Since then, the composition of the two Wage Boards has been
D
E
as under:-
Wage Board for Working Journalists
1. Justice Gurbax Rai Majithia, retired.Judge Chairman
of the High Court of Bombay at Mumbai
F
2. Shri K.M. Sahni, Former Secretary,
Independent
Ministry of Labour and Employment
Member
3. Shri B.P. Singh
Independent
G
Member
4. Shri P.N. Prasanna Kumar
Independent
Member
5. Shri Naresh Mohan, representing
Representing
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
414
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 2 S.C.R.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Indian Newspaper Society
. Employers
Shri Gurinder Singh, representing All
Representing
India Small and Medium Newspapers
Employers
Shri Prataprai, Tarachand Shah,
Representing
representing Indian language Newspaper Employers
Association
Shri K. Vikram Rao, President, Indian
Representing
Federation of Working Journalists
Working
Journalists
Dr. Nand Kishore Trikha, President,
Representing
National Union of Journalists (India)
Working
Journalists
Shri Suresh Akhouri, President, Indian
Representing
Journalists Union
Working
Journalists
Wage Board for Non-Journalist Newspaper
Employees
Justice Gurbax Rai Majithia, retired Judge Chairman
of the High Court of Bombay at Mumbai
Shri K.M. Sahni, Former Secretary,
Independent
Ministry of Labour and Employment
Member
Shri B.P. Singh
Independent
Member
Shri P.N. Prasanna Kumar
Independent
Member
Shri Naresh Mohan, representing Indian
Representing
Newspaper Society
Employers
Shri Gurinder Singh, representing All
Representing
India Small and Medium Newspapers
I Employers
"
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 415
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
7. Shri Prataprai, Tarachand Shah,
Representing
representing Indian language Newspaper Employers
Association
8. Shri M.C. Narasimhan, Vice
Representing
President, All India Newspaper
NonEmployees Federation
Journalist
Newspaper
Employees
9. Shri Uma Shankar Mishra, Vice
Representing
President, National Federation of
NonNewspaper Employees
Journalist
Newspaper
Employees
10 Shri M.S. Yadav, General Secretary,
Representing
Confederation of Newspapers and
NonNews Agencies Employees'
Journalist
Organizations.
Newspaper
Employees
A
B
c
D
6 .. Owing to the unexpected change of the members
E
constituting the Wage Boards, they could not finalize and submit
c their reports within the prescribed period of three years as
originally notified i.e., by 23.05.2010. As such, their term was
then extended up to 31.12.2010. It is this recommendation
submitted by the Wage Boards, which was subsequently
F
accepted by the Central Government and notified on
11.11.2011 that is impugned in the given proceedings.
Discussion
7. In succinct, the petitioners herein, challenged the
G
~recommendations of the Wage Boards and the notification
dated 11.11.2011 mainly on the following grounds:-
(i)
Constitutional validity of tlJe,Act and the Amendment
~19~.
H
416
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 2 S.C.R.
A
(ii)
Improper Constitution of the Wage Boards
B
(iii)
Irregularity in the procedure adopted by Majithia
Wage Boards.
(iv)
Majithia Wage Boards overlooked the relevant
aspects and considered extraneous factors while
drafting the recommendations
We shall examine and deliberate distinctively on each contested
C point surfaced by the petitioners herein in the succeeding
paragraphs.
8. Heard Mr. Anil B. Divan, Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Mr. P.P.
Rao, Mr. Aman Lekhi, Mr. S.S. Ramdas, Mr. Brijender Chahar,
learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Gopal Jain, Mr.
D Akhil Sibal, Mr. Nachiket Joshi, Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Ms. Bina
Gupta, Mr. Manoj Goel, Mr. E.C. Agrawala, learned counsel for
the petitioners, Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned Solicitor General
for the official respondents, Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned senior
E counsel and Mr. Parmanand Pandey and Mr. Thampan
Thomas, learned counsel for other respondents - journalists/
non-journalists.
F
Constitutional validity of the Act and Amendment Act,
1974
9. At the outset, almost all the learned counsel for the
petitioners, challenged the vires of the Act on twin grounds.
Firstly, the Act infringes the guaranteed fundamental rights
under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. Secondly, the Act
G has become obsolete with the passage of time.
H
10. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners
that misplaced classification and singling out of a specific
business industry being the Newspaper Industry is violative of
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 417
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
Article 14 since the Act only regulates the print media and not
A
electronic media. Also, in the era of globalization and
liberalization, to shackle one part of the industry with regulations
is unreasonable, unfair and arbitrary and, therefore, violative of
Articles 19(1 )(a) and 19(1 )(g).
11.