Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard civil appeals arising from two judgments of the High Court of Bombay: the Aurangabad Bench judgment dated 2022-12-22 and the Nagpur Bench judgment dated 2022-11-17. The appeals involved a common question of law under Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955. The Aurangabad Bench Single Judge allowed 16 writ petitions filed by the employer Dainik Bhaskar, setting aside an award of the Labour Court, Aurangabad dated 2019-01-04, relying on a Division Bench judgment of the Nagpur Bench. The Nagpur Bench Division Bench had allowed a writ petition by All India Reporter Private Limited, upheld a preliminary objection, and set aside a reference made to the 4th Labour Court, Nagpur by the Additional Commissioner of Labour. The central question before the High Court and the Supreme Court was whether Section 17(2) empowered a State Government to delegate its power to refer a dispute relating to quantum of dues to a Labour Court to any other authority. The Government of Maharashtra vide notification dated 2016-05-11 had delegated such power to Additional Commissioners of Labour and Deputy Commissioners of Labour. The Court reproduced Section 17, noting that sub-section (1) allows a newspaper employee to apply to the State Government for recovery of amounts due; sub-section (2) enables the State Government to refer any question as to amount due to a Labour Court; and sub-section (3) requires the Labour Court to forward its decision to the State Government for recovery. The Court referred to Samarjit Ghosh v. Bennett Coleman & Co., (1987) 3 SCC 507, where it was held that Section 17 provisions constitute a single scheme, and the State Government before which an application under Section 17(1) is made is the competent authority to refer the question under Section 17(2), regardless of the employee's subsequent transfer. The Court observed that the interpretation of Section 17(2) is important because if the reference is made by an incompetent authority, the Labour Court award would be questionable. The provided excerpt ended before the Court's final reasoning and decision; therefore, the final holding and directions are not mentioned in the available text.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Recovery of Money Due to Newspaper Employee - Single Scheme under Section 17 - Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, Section 17(1), Section 17(2), Section 17(3) - Section 17(1) allows a newspaper employee to make an application to the State Government for recovery of amount due, and the State Government or a specified authority may issue a certificate to the Collector for recovery as arrears of land revenue; Section 17(2) enables the State Government to refer any question as to amount due to a Labour Court; Section 17(3) requires the Labour Court to forward its decision to the State Government for recovery. The Court observed that all sub-sections of Section 17 constitute a single scheme where the State Government before which an application for recovery is made is the same State Government which refers the question to the Labour Court and directs recovery after adjudication. Held that jurisdiction to make the reference follows the application (Paras 7, 9-11, 13-14). B) Labour Law - Delegation of Power to Make Reference - Section 17(2) Working Journalists Act - Central question before the Court was whether Section 17(2) empowers a State Government to delegate its power to refer a dispute as to amount due to any other authority. The Government of Maharashtra issued notification dated 11 May 2016 delegating such power to Additional Commissioners of Labour and Deputy Commissioners of Labour. The Court noted that if a reference is made by an authority which is incompetent, the Labour Court award would become questionable, and therefore interpretation of Section 17(2) is important for both employers and employees (Paras 4-5, 8). C) Labour Law - Jurisdiction of State Government to Refer under Section 17 - Rule 36 Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Rules, 1957 - The State Government before which an application under Section 17(1) is determined by the location of the Central Office or Branch Office where the newspaper employee is employed is the competent authority to refer the question as to amount due under Section 17(2). In Samarjit Ghosh v. Bennett Coleman & Co., (1987) 3 SCC 507, the Supreme Court held that Section 17 provisions constitute a single scheme and the employee's subsequent transfer to another State during pendency of proceedings does not affect the competence of the State Government where the application was rightly made (Paras 9-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 empowered a State Government to delegate its power to refer a dispute relating to the quantum of dues payable to an employee by his employer to a Labour Court for decision to any other authority.
Law Points
- Section 17(1) allows newspaper employee to apply to State Government for recovery of amount due
- State Government may specify an authority to be satisfied that amount is due
- Section 17(2) enables State Government to refer question as to amount due to Labour Court
- Section 17(3) requires Labour Court to forward decision to State Government for recovery
- Sections 17(1)
- 17(2) and 17(3) constitute a single scheme
- State Government before which application under Section 17(1) is made is competent to refer question under Section 17(2)
- jurisdiction to make reference follows the application
- employee's subsequent transfer does not affect competent State Government
- interpretation of Section 17(2) determines validity of Labour Court awards
