Allahabad High Court Imposes Costs On Dainik Jagran's Publisher For Denying Wage Benefits To Employees

The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on Jagran Prakashan to be paid to each employee who has been denied benefits of the Majithia Wage Board recommendations.

Justice Pankaj Bhatia found that the petitioner company had preferred an appeal and a revision petition after the initial judgment imposed a cost on the company and that the issues arising in both writ petitions were common.

“This Court had given the judgment on 27.04.2023 wherein a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) was also imposed, the applicants have successfully avoided the implementation of the award and the judgment by filing an appeal which was not maintainable before this Court and after having failed in the said appeal, have filed the review application.”

Thus, the Court imposed further costs on the Review Applicant.

“The review application on merits as well as the conduct of the petitioner deserves to be rejected and is accordingly rejected with a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) to be paid to each of the employees who have filed a claim petition. The adjudicatory authority while enforcing the award shall also recover and pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- to each of the claimant who have approached the adjudicatory authority for payment of their claims.”

Factual Background:

The petitioner, 'Dainik Jagran' newspaper, is an establishment as defined under section 2(d) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Condition of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 ('WJ Act'). There were 56 references made by the employees who were appointed to various posts including, Dispatcher, on probation.

Two Wage Boards for journalist and non-journalist employees were constituted by the Central Government under sections 9 and 13-C of the WJ Act. The recommendations made by the Majithia Wage Board were challenged along with the vires of the Act of 1955.

Paragraph 20-J of the Wage Board recommendations is as under:

“20(J) The revised pay scales shall become applicable to all employees with effect from the 1st of July 2010. However, if an employee within three weeks from the date of publication of the Government Notification u/s 12 of the Act enforcing these recommendations exercises his / her option for retaining his existing pay scales and existing emoluments, he/she shall be entitled to retain his / her existing scales and such emoluments.”

Before the writ Court, Jagran Prakashan contended that the employees had retained their existing wages and existing emoluments through a voluntary undertaking in terms of the mandate of para 20(J) of the recommendations. Despite giving an undertaking in terms of clause 20(J) of the Wage Board, 198 persons filed a claim under section 17(1) of the Act before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Noida who decided in favour of 57 employees.

The issue framed by the Court was whether once Clause 20(J) of the Wage Board is in existence and has been notified as such, any claim over and above the undertaking given by the employees would not be maintainable. The writ Court had dismissed the petition with a cost of Rs. 25,000 to be given by Jagaran Prakashan to that petitioner.

“The argument of the counsel for the petitioner in the light of the provisions of Clause 20(J), if accepted, would render the entire Act inapplicable and if the said argument is accepted, the same would be in clear violation of the mandate of Section 12, 13, 13-C, 13-D and Section 16 of the Act,” held the Court which has been challenged in the review jurisdiction.

The review application was filed on the ground that the Court had failed to decide other issues. Further, the reliance placed by the Court on Section 12 of the Act is misplaced as the said section only enables the Central Government to notify the award. Lastly, it was argued that in view of the pleadings of the employees themselves in the affidavit filed by them in support of their claim before the Labour Court, the Court erred in holding the newspaper establishment to fall under Clause I.

Verdict:

The Court held that pleading in the petition was only to the effect of maintainability of the claim and not the quantum of the claim. The Court observed that any agreement with benefits lower than what was recommended by the Wage Board would be contrary to Sections 13 and 16 of the Act.

With regard to the applicability of Section 12 of the Act, the Court held that it not only enables the Central Government to notify the recommendations of the Wage Board, but the scope of the said section is much wider. The last argument of the Applicant was also rejected by the Court considering their own affidavit wherein they had claimed to be a Class-I Newspaper Establishment. Further, it was noted that the Applicant had failed to establish that it was a separate and distinct entity from the parent company.

“Before rejecting the review application on the reasonings as recorded above, it is essential to deprecate the conduct of the petitioners who have continued to avoid the enforcement of the Wage Board recommendations from the date of notification on 11.11.2011 and have resorted to taking defenses by taking shield of the agreements which give the benefits which are less than what were recommended by the Wage Board and have continued to deny the benefits on one ground or the other, thus, frustrating the entire scheme of the Act and the benefits which flow in favour of non-journalist newspaper employees for years together,” observed the Court.

Accordingly, the review application was dismissed with costs.

Case Title: Jagran Prakashan Ltd vs. Shri Aman Kumar Singh And 4 Others [Civil Misc Review Application No. - 351 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 299

Counsel for Applicant: Chandra Bhan Gupta

Counsel for Opposite Party: Man Mohan Singh

Click Here To Read/Download Order