Supreme Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Jurisdiction of Authority under Working Journalists Act. The authority under Section 17 lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate on the merits of claims made by journalists against employers.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose between a private limited company, which published a daily newspaper, and a journalist who supplied news to the publication. The journalist, after leaving India contrary to the company's instructions, had his arrangement terminated. Upon returning, he sought to claim dues from the company under the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955. The State Government referred his claim to a specified authority, which the company contested, arguing that the authority lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate on the merits of the claim. The Supreme Court examined the provisions of Section 17 of the Act, concluding that it only allowed for recovery of amounts previously determined by a competent authority or court, and did not empower the specified authority to adjudicate on the merits of the claim. The Court held that the authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the journalist's application, leading to the dismissal of the petition on technical grounds, with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Labour Law - Jurisdiction of Authority - Authority under Section 17 of the Working Journalists Act - The authority specified under Section 17 does not have jurisdiction to determine the merits of the claim made by a journalist against an employer. The section only provides a procedure for recovery of amounts previously determined by a competent authority or court, and does not empower the authority to adjudicate on the merits of the claim. Held that the authority's jurisdiction is limited to confirming if the amount claimed is still due (Paras 11-12).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the authority specified under Section 17 of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 had jurisdiction to determine the amount due to the journalist.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court held that the specified authority under Section 17 had no jurisdiction to entertain the first respondent's application and dismissed the petition on technical grounds, with no order as to costs.

Law Points

  • jurisdiction
  • authority
  • recovery of dues
  • Working Journalists Act
  • 1955
  • Article 32
  • merits of claim
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

Petition No. 240 of 1956

1958-03-19

Gajendragadkar J.

R. Ratnamurthi Aiyar, B. K. B. Kaidu, Purshottam Tricumdas, P. Ranjithramy, J. N. Shroff

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

Challenge to the jurisdiction of the specified authority under the Working Journalists Act.

Remedy Sought

The petitioner sought a writ of prohibition against the authority's proceedings.

Filing Reason

The petitioner contended that the authority lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate on the merits of the claim.

Issues

Jurisdiction of the specified authority under Section 17 Merits of the claim against the employer

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioner argued that Section 17 does not empower the authority to adjudicate on merits. The respondent contended that the authority had jurisdiction to determine the claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The authority under Section 17 of the Working Journalists Act is limited to confirming the existence of dues and does not extend to adjudicating the merits of claims.

Judgment Excerpts

The authority specified under s. 17 of the Act had no jurisdiction to determine the amount due. The section merely provided for a procedure to recover an amount from the employer which had previously been determined by a competent authority or court.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed an application under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the jurisdiction of the specified authority after the authority decided to proceed with the claim made by the journalist.

Acts & Sections

  • Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955: Section 17
  • Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 3
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Upholds Injunction Against Defendant in Trademark Infringement Case — 'Cothagiri' Mark Deceptively Similar to 'Cothas'. Court Restrains Defendant from Using Mark 'Cothagiri' for Coffee Products, Finding Prima Facie Case of P...
Related Judgement
High Court Karnataka High Court Upholds Interim Injunction in Trademark Infringement Case — 'HOTEL SPECIAL' vs 'SVT HOTEL SPECIAL' for Asafoetida. Deceptive Similarity Established Despite Addition of Prefix 'SVT'.