[Majithia Wage Board Recommendations] Employee's Satisfaction With Wages Not Absolute, Doesn't Preclude Them From Claiming Higher Wages: MP High Court

In a petition filed by Dainik Bhaskar challenging the order passed by the Labour Court (Hoshangabad), the Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that a declaration given by the employee stating that he is satisfied with the wages under Section 20(j) of Majithia Wage Board Recommendations cannot be deemed to be absolute. The employee receiving lesser wages won't be estopped from claiming higher wages as per the standards enshrined in Majithia Board Recommendations, the court added.

Upon a recommendation from Dy. Labour Commissioner, a reference was made by the state government pursuant to a statement of claim made by the newspaper employee under Section 17(2) of The Working Journalists And Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 for pay scale enhancement. Adjudicating the said reference, the Labour Court had directed Dainik Bhaskar to pay an additional amount of Rs. 9,82,751/- along with Rs. 22,031/- towards interim relief for his stint as the Sub-Editor and Dy. News Editor at DB for the period of 2009-2016.E PERIOD OF 2009

The single-judge bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia held that Clause 20(j) of the Board Recommendations should be interpreted in such a manner that a declaration under the same could only allow an employee to draw wages higher than what has been prescribed by the Board, and the same can be retained by such employee.

The employer will not be in a position to reduce the pay scale later by strictly adhering to the pay recommendations made by the Board, the court underscored.

“….clause 20(j) of recommendation of Majithia Wage Board cannot be interpreted that the employer can ignore the recommendations by obtaining a declaration from an employee to the effect that he is satisfied with lower pay scale, although he is entitled for higher pay scale….”, the bench sitting at Jabalpur held.

The court also placed reliance on precedents such as M/s Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd. v. State of M.P. (2019) and Avishek Raja v. Sanjay (2017), where it has been categorically held that Section 12 of the 1955 Act r/w Majithia Board Recommendations is silent on the availability of an option to receive less than what is due to an employee under the Act.

The court also emphasized that paying employees less than the minimum wages prescribed will be punishable under Section 22 of the Minimum Wages Act.

“….Thus, if the contention of the Petitioner, that if a declaration has been made by an employee under Clause 20(j)…and agrees to work on a lesser pay than what was recommended by Majithia Wage Board is accepted, then it would amount to permitting the employer to pay lesser wages than the Minimum Wages…”, the single judge bench laid down in unequivocal terms that what is otherwise an offense and violative of Article 23 of the Constitution cannot be legalized under the garb of Clause 20(j).

Other Observations

Initially, the court noted that the Labour Court couldn't be faulted for not framing the issue about the declaration given by the respondent under Clause 20(j) before giving findings. The petitioner did not raise any objection to the non-framing of this issue, even though the petitioner cross-examined the respondent and led evidence about the declaration later, the cpourt reasoned.

“….when a party to the suit was aware of the controversy involved in the suit and in fact it was defence taken by the Petitioner itself then non-framing of issue becomes insignificant..”, the court added.

The court emphasized that the voluntary nature of the declaration given by the employee was a defense taken by the petitioner itself, and the burden to prove the same was upon the petitioner. Relying on Section 111 of the Evidence Act, as well as Section 16 of the Contract Act, the court inferred that the burden to prove the good faith of the transaction was upon the petitioner since the latter was in a position of active confidence as an employer.

On the aspect of the category in which the aggrieved employee falls for the purpose of determining the pay scale according to the Board Recommendations, the court sided with the Labour Court. It held that the petitioner is covered under Section 2(f) of the 1955 Act. Section 2(f) denotes a 'working journalist' who is not employed in a managerial or administrative or supervisory capacity. The court held that the burden was upon the petitioner to prove that the employee falls under 11A (Group 3) instead as a Dy./Asst News Editor. This burden of proof was not discharged by the newspaper entity despite being in possession of the best evidence, the court pointed out.

“…The nomenclature of the post will not determine the fate but the duties which were assigned to the employee will determine the lis. There is no whisper in the evidence also in this regard.”, the court reasoned.

Furthermore, the petitioner had submitted that Hoshangabad is a separate division of Dainik Bhaskar. The Labour Court was wrong to include the establishment in the Class I category as a news agency having gross revenue of Rs. 10,000/- crores, it was submitted. However, the court disagreed with the submission and referred to Section 2(d) of the 1955 Act to cull out the definition of a 'Newspaper Establishment'.

“…It is fairly conceded by Counsel for the Petitioner, that whatever profit or loss is incurred by the Hoshangabad Unit, gets transferred to the account of the Head office of the News paper… all the units of DB Corp are under the control of Managing Director and has only one Head Quarter…. It is not the case of the petitioner that Hoshangabad Unit is not under the supervision of Board of Directors or has its own separate head quarter”, the court further remarked.

The court made the above analysis to buttress the proposition that clubbing of all the units for the purposes of wage determination is permissible, specifically when the loss and profit get transferred to the headquarters of Dainik Bhaskar.

The court also went on to affirm the Labour Court's jurisdiction to try the reference in this matter instead of the Industrial Tribunal. The court held that only the Labour Court has jurisdiction to decide a reference made by the state government under Section 17(2) of the 1955 Act.

Accordingly, the court upheld the orders passed by the Labour Court in its entirety.

Senior Advocate Girish Patwardhan, along with Advocates Sankalp Kochar and Sidhant Kochar, appeared for Dainik Bhaskar. Senior Advocate Brian Da-Silva and Advocate Sarabvir Singh represented the Managing Director of Rajasthan Patrika Private Ltd. Govt. Advocate Rohit appeared on behalf of the state. Advocates Rajesh Kumar Soni, Aishwarya Sahu A.S. Hussain, M.S. Pankhudi Vishwakarma, and Senior Advocate Ajay Mishra appeared for the other respondents in the connected petitions.

Case Title: Dainik Bhaskar Through Its Authorised Representative Rajkumar Sahu v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal Secretary Labour Department & Ors. and Connected Matters

Case No: Misc. Petition No. 5093 of 2022 & Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 88

Click Here To Read/ Download Order