Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose when a working journalist, who had been supplying news to a daily newspaper owned by a private limited company on a fixed monthly honorarium, left India contrary to instructions and was consequently relieved of his duties. Upon his return, he requested reconsideration, which was declined, and he then made a claim under Section 17 of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 for a substantial sum of money. The State Government nominated a retired civil servant as the specified authority under Section 17 and referred the claim to him. The employer disputed the entire claim and contended that the authority had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of the disputed claim, arguing that Section 17 only provided a mode of recovery after the amount due had been determined by a competent court or authority. The specified authority held a preliminary hearing on jurisdiction and concluded that it had jurisdiction to deal with the matter, refusing to direct the claimant to a civil court. The employer then filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging this order, seeking a writ of prohibition and alternatively declaration that Section 17 was ultra vires. The Supreme Court, having already upheld the validity of the Act except for one provision in earlier petitions, focused on the interpretation of Section 17. The Court examined the language of Section 17 and the scheme of the Act, noting that the State Government or specified authority had not been clothed with the normal powers of a court or tribunal to hold a formal enquiry, such as enforcing attendance of witnesses, examining them on oath, issuing commissions, or ordering discovery and inspection. The Court contrasted this with Section 11 of the Act, which expressly conferred such powers on the Wage Board. The Court reasoned that if the legislature had intended Section 17 to include adjudication of disputed claims, it would have conferred appropriate powers for an effective enquiry. The Court accepted the employer's construction that Section 17 provided for recovery of an amount already determined by a competent court or authority, and the authority's enquiry was limited to verifying whether any amount found due remained unpaid. Consequently, the Court held that the specified authority had no jurisdiction to determine the amount due and could not proceed with the enquiry into the merits of the claim. The writ petition was allowed, and the authority's order was effectively quashed.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Working Journalists - Section 17 of Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 - Recovery of Dues - Section 17 provides only a procedure for recovery of money due to a newspaper employee after the amount has been determined by a competent authority or court; it does not constitute the State Government or specified authority as a forum for adjudicating disputed claims. The court relied on the absence of conferment of normal court powers such as enforcing attendance, examining witnesses, issuing commissions, and discovery, in contrast to Section 11 of the Act applicable to the Wage Board, to conclude that Section 17 contemplates a summary execution-type enquiry. Held: The authority under Section 17 lacked jurisdiction to determine the amount due and could not adjudicate the merits of respondent No.1's claim against the petitioner. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 17 of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 confers jurisdiction on the State Government or specified authority to adjudicate upon the merits of a disputed claim by a newspaper employee against his employer
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the petition, holding that Section 17 of the Act does not empower the State Government or the specified authority to determine the amount due to a newspaper employee; it only provides a procedure for recovery after the amount has been determined by a competent court or authority. Consequently, the second respondent had no jurisdiction to proceed with the enquiry into the merits of the first respondent's claim, and the order dated November 12, 1956 was quashed.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Section 17 of Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act
- 1955 provides only a summary recovery mechanism for amounts due to newspaper employees already determined by a competent court or authority
- State Government or specified authority under Section 17 has no jurisdiction to adjudicate merits of disputed claim
- Absence of formal inquiry powers like enforcing attendance
- examining witnesses
- issuing commissions indicates narrow scope of Section 17
- Section 3(1) of Act making Industrial Disputes Act applicable to working journalists does not confer Industrial Disputes Act Section 11 powers on Section 17 authority
- Writ of prohibition lies against authority acting without jurisdiction under Article 32
Case Details
1958 LawText (SC) (03) 11
P.B. Gajendragadkar, Natwarlal H. Bhagwati, Bhuvneshwar P. Sinha, Syed Jaffer Imam, J.L. Kapur
Citation not available, 1958 AIR 507, 1959 SCR 1
R. Ramamurthi Aiyar, B. K. B. Naidu, Purshottam Tricumdas, P. Ramaswamy, I. N. Shroff, Y. Kumar, C. K. Daphtary, B. Sen
M/s. Kasturi and Sons (Private) Ltd.
Shri N. Salivateeswaran and Another
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Constitutional writ petition under Article 32 challenging jurisdiction of specified authority under Section 17 of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 to adjudicate disputed claim
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought a writ of prohibition or other suitable writ restraining respondent No.2 from exercising powers under Section 17 and proceeding with enquiry and issuing certificate, alternatively a declaration that Section 17 is ultra vires
Filing Reason
Respondent No.1 made claim for Rs.1,57,172-8-0 under Section 17; State Government nominated respondent No.2 as authority; respondent No.2 ruled he had jurisdiction to adjudicate merits and proceeded to hearing; petitioner challenged that order
Previous Decisions
Respondent No.2 by order dated November 12, 1956 concluded he had jurisdiction and refused to direct respondent No.1 to civil court; matter adjourned to December 1, 1956 for merits. In parallel petitions, Supreme Court upheld validity of Act except Section 5(1)(a)(iii)
Issues
Whether Section 17 of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 confers jurisdiction on the State Government or specified authority to adjudicate upon the merits of a disputed claim by a newspaper employee against his employer
Whether Section 17, if construed to confer such adjudicatory jurisdiction, would be ultra vires the Constitution
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that Section 17 provides only a mode of recovery, not a forum for adjudication; condition precedent is prior determination by competent court or authority; authority's enquiry limited to whether amount still due; alternatively if it confers adjudicatory power, section ultra vires
Respondent argued that process of recovery includes determination of amount due, so Section 17 provides a self-contained procedure for enforcement of claims; authority has jurisdiction to examine merits
Ratio Decidendi
Section 17 of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 does not confer adjudicatory jurisdiction on the State Government or the specified authority; it only provides a summary recovery mechanism after the amount due to a newspaper employee has been determined by a competent court or authority. The absence of powers to hold a formal enquiry (such as enforcing attendance, examining witnesses, issuing commissions, discovery and inspection) supports the conclusion that the enquiry under Section 17 is limited to whether any amount determined due remains unpaid.
Judgment Excerpts
Section 17 provides: 'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the collector and the collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.'
In our opinion, the construction suggested by the petitioner should be accepted because we feel that this construction is more reasonable and more consistent with the scheme of the act.
It is significant that the State Government or the specific authority mentioned in s. 17 has not been clothed with the normal powers of a court or a tribunal to hold a formal enquiry.
Procedural History
Respondent No.1 left India contrary to petitioner's instructions; petitioner terminated arrangement effective March 1, 1956. Respondent No.1 returned in July 1956, requested reconsideration, which was denied. Respondent No.1 applied to Labour Minister of State of Bombay under Section 17 of the Act. State of Bombay nominated Shri M. R. Meher as authority and referred claim. Copy of application served on petitioner; written statement filed October 18, 1956 disputing claim and jurisdiction. Second respondent heard preliminary issue and by order dated November 12, 1956 held he had jurisdiction and refused to direct civil court; matter adjourned to December 1, 1956 for merits. Petitioner filed writ petition under Article 32 in Supreme Court challenging that order. Supreme Court decided March 19, 1958, allowing petition and holding Section 17 limited to recovery.
Acts & Sections
- Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955: 17, 3(1), 4, 5, 5(1)(a)(iii), 8, 11
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 11
- Constitution of India: Article 32
