Question Referred Under S. 17(2) Of Working Journalists Act Cannot Be Construed As Industrial Dispute Under ID Act: Madras High Court

Background Facts

M/s THG Publishing Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent) was a newspaper establishment governed by Working Journalist and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1955 (Working Journalists Act). The Majithia Wage Board was constituted by the Central Government for revision of wages of newspaper establishments and the Wage Board gave recommendations to the government proposing wage revisions in 2011. The Respondent settled the dues of their employees in 2014-2015 only but S. Madhavan (Petitioner) along with a few other employees approached the Government claiming that they were entitled to difference of higher Dearness Allowance in terms of the Majithia Wage Board Award.

The Government referred the matter to Labour Court under Section 17 of the Working Journalists Act. During the Pendency of the aforesaid Industrial Dispute, the Petitioner was retrenched from service in 2020. The Petitioner filed a complaint under Sectio 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) for violation of section 33 of the ID Act. The complaint of the Petitioner was dismissed by the Labour Court. Thus, the writ petition was filed.

It was contended by the Petitioner that the Labour Court erred in rejecting the compliant on the ground that no dispute was pending in terms of Section 33 of the ID Act. It was further contended that the Labour Court failed to take note of the case of Bhavnagar Municipality vs. Alibhai Karimbhai wherein the Supreme Court had held that compliant under section 33 of the ID Act is akin to a reference under section 10(1) of the ID Act. Thus, the Labour Court was bound to decide on the validity of the retrenchment order passed by the Respondent.

On the other hand, it was contended by the Respondent that the Labour Court gave its award on proper appreciation of the materials before it. Further, the dispute before the Labour Court was not an Industrial Dispute as industrial dispute referred to in Section 33 of the ID Act did not cover a reference under Section 17 of the Working Journalist Act, but covered disputes raised under Section 10(1) of the ID Act.

Findings of the Court

The court observed that Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists Act provides that if any question arises with respect to an amount due under the Working Journalists Act, then the State Government can refer the question to any Labour Court constituted under ID Act or any other law relating to industrial disputes applicable in the state. It further provides that the said law/act related the labour courts will have effect “as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act or law”

The court observed that the phrase “as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act or law” cannot convert a question referred under section 17(2) of the ID Act into an Industrial Dispute as defined under section 2(k) of the ID Act. The above-mentioned phrase would only mean that while answering the question referred, the Labour Court would adjudicate it in the same manner as it would adjudicate a reference under the ID Act. Thus, a question that is referred to a Labour Court under section 17(2) of the Working Journalists Act cannot be construed as an Industrial Dispute under section 2(k) of the ID Act.

The court further observed that section 2(k) of the ID Act talks about disputes in relation to non-employment, terms of employment or conditions of labour but a question under section 17(2) of the Working Journalists Act deals with computation of claims.

The court also observed that Section 17 of the Working Journalist Act is akin to Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act and it has been settled by the Supreme Court that jurisdiction exercised by the Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) of ID Act is that of an Executing Court.

The court observed that the in the factual matrix of the case, the question referred to the Labour Court was in relation to the computation of difference in the Dearness Allowance and was thus not an Industrial Dispute.

The court also remarked that it was trite law that Section 33(1)(a) of the ID Act is attracted only if an industrial dispute is pending. Since what was referred to the Labour Court was an adjudication of a computation petition, there was no violation of Section 33 of ID Act by the Respondent.

The Court also observed that the Labour Court had rightly relied on the Judgment of The Bhavnagar Municipality vs. Alibhai Karimbhai and others by the Supreme Court wherein it was held that Retrenchment does not ordinarily amount to alteration of conditions of service. Thus Section 33(1)(a) of the ID Act is also not attracted on this ground.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case No.- W.P.No.6343 of 2022

Case Name- S. Madhavan vs M/s THG Publishing Pvt. Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 185

Counsel for the Petitioner- Party-in-Person

Counsel for Respondents- Mr.G.Anand gopalan for T.S.Gopalan & Company.

Click Here To Read/Download Order