Working Journalists Act: What Allahabad High Court Held On Operation Of Industrial Disputes Act, Delegation Of Power By State Govt
The Allahabad High Court has held that 1955 Act is a special act governing the conditions of work for newspaper employees including working journalists and non-working journalists and will have overriding effect over the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.“The Act of 1947 only supplements the cause of working journalists, but in no way it restricts in reaping the benefits provided under the...
The Allahabad High Court has held that 1955 Act is a special act governing the conditions of work for newspaper employees including working journalists and non-working journalists and will have overriding effect over the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
“The Act of 1947 only supplements the cause of working journalists, but in no way it restricts in reaping the benefits provided under the Act 1955, especially under Section 17, which is a scheme of recovering of dues of an employee from its employer,” held Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal.
The bench also held that the power of the State Government to make reference to the Labour Court under Section 17(2) of Working Journalists And Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions Of Service) And Misc. Provisions Act, 1955 can be delegated to competent authority.
The Court held that provisions of Section 17 must be construed as a whole. As observed by the Court, Section 17(1) provides that when an application has been moved by an employee for recovery of amount due to him from the employer, the State Government or authority specified by the State Government shall issue a certificate to the Collector to recover the amount from the employer where there is no dispute regarding the amount.
Sub-section(2) of Section 17 provides that in case of a dispute regarding the amount due, the State Government shall make a reference to the Labour Court for adjudication of the disputed amount. The decision of the Labour Court shall then be forwarded to the State Government for recovery of decided amount.
“All the three sub-sections of Section 17 are intertwined, and sub- section (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,”
Further, the Court held that the Labour Court gives a 'decision' and does not pass an 'award' as mentioned in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court held that since it is a decision, there was no need for publication of such a decision as contemplated in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Factual Background
The Apex Court in ABP (Private Ltd.) vs. Union of India had upheld the Majithia Wage Board Award and had directed that all arrears of payment till March 2014 be paid in 4 equal installments. Since payments were not being made, contempt petitions were filed before the Supreme Court which directed that all complaints regarding non-implementation of the Wage Board be dealt with under Section 17 (Recovery of money due from an employer) of the 1955 Act.
Since there was a shortfall of payment made to the respondent employees, they filed an application under Section 17(1) before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Gautam Budh Nagar who is the prescribed authority under the impugned notification. The order directing the Management to pay was challenged before the High Court and was set aside. Prescribed Authority was directed to refer the dispute to the Labour Court. The Labour Court directed the petitioner to pay wages to the employees along with 6% interest.
Petitioner, Indian Express, challenged 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 the 1955 Act. The subsequent reference made by the Deputy Labour Commissioner as well as the order of the Labour Court rejecting application challenging the jurisdiction have also been challenged before the High Court.
High Court Verdict
The Court observed that in Pradhan Prabandhank/Unit Head M/s. Amar Ujala v. State of U.P. and others, the Allahabad High Court had held that the power of reference under Section 17(2) is not a quasi-judicial power vested with the State Government, and hence, can be delegated. The Court had upheld the delegation of power made by the State Government vide notification dated 12.11.2014 describing competent authorities to deal with Section 17 applications.
It was held that by specifying the authority who would dispose of the application, the State Government had conferred the powers of making reference on the competent authority as well. This decision was followed in Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd. Jagatganj Varanasi v. State of U.P. and others wherein the Allahabad High Court had refused to quash the notification dated 12.11.2014.
The Court further relied on Samarjit Ghosh v. Bennet Coleman and Co. and other where the Supreme Court had held that all provisions of Section 17 constitute a single scheme.
The scheme of Section 17, as held the Apex Court, is that a newspaper employee claiming that wages have not been paid to him by the employer can apply to the State Government for recovery of the amount. When there is no dispute regarding the amount, the Collector will recover the amount from the employer and pay it over to the newspaper employee. However, if the amount claimed is disputed then newspaper employee may make an application before the appropriate State Government who shall then refer the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded to the State Government which will then direct recovery of the amount.
Justice Agarwal held that there is no other form, other than Form-C which provides for application regarding recovery of amount due to the employee. The Court held that Section 17 emphasizes recovery of money due from the employer and its provisions lay down sets to be followed.
The Court held that “notification dated 12.11.2014 issued by State Government specifying the officers mentioned in Column II to be authorities competent to dispose applications under Section 17 of the Act 1955 has already been upheld by this Court in Hindustan Media Ventures (supra), and the power of reference to Labour Court having also been upheld in case of Pradhan Prabandhank (supra), no interference is required in the writ petition as far as the challenge having been laid to the notification as well as the reference order.”
The Court observed that in ABP (Private Ltd.) the Supreme Court had held that a newspaper industry was class by itself and the amendment in 1974 only brought the non-working journalists within the ambit of the Act of 1955 to extend them the same benefit as the working journalists.
The Court held that “the Act of 1955 is only an enabling provision for improving and regulating the service conditions of newspaper employees which includes both working journalists and non-journalist newspaper employees.”
While deciding the issue that whether the decision of the Labour Court under Section 17 is an 'award' or decision simplicitor, the Court observed that the word 'decision' has been carefully used in Section 17(3) instead of 'award'. The Court also observed that though 'award' has been defined under Central and State Industrial Disputes Acts, it has not been defined under the 1955 Act.
“Under the Central Industrial Disputes Act when reference is made under Section 10 to a Labour Court or Tribunal, it makes an award. Similarly, under the State Industrial Disputes Act, when a reference is made under Section 4-k, the Labour Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be, makes an award. However, the scheme of Section 17 of the Act 1955 in sub-section (3) provides for decision of a Labour Court and not an award.”
Holding that it is a decision and not an award, the Court held that there is no requirement for publication of the same. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Case Title: The Indian Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 234 [WRIT - C No. - 292 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 234