Tribhuvan Nath, Journalist (Special Correspondent) Retd., Times of India vs Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. and Others

Jawaharlal Gupta, J.—The petitioner, a Journalist, was working for M/s. Bennett Coleman and Company, Respondent No. 1. In December 1971, he was transferred from Katmandu to Chandigarh. He retired in May, 1982. The petitioner avers that the respondent had failed to categorise him in accordance with the Palekar Award. As a result, his pay and gratuity had been wrongly determined. He, consequently, made a demand on August 22, 1983 for the correct fixation of his pay and gratuity. On September 17, 1984, he served a notice for payment of an amount of Rs. 87,054.54 ps. He was paid an amount of Rs. 53,997.75 ps. as gratuity and leave compensation. This was, however, less than the amount which the petitioner claimed to be actually due to him. Accordingly, on July 16, 1984 the petitioner served a notice of demand on the Management and requested the Chandigarh Administration to refer the matter to the Labour Court. On December 27, 1984 Chandigarh Administration made a reference u/s 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, it was later on found that the petitioner had, in fact, made an application u/s 17 of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). Consequently, the reference as originally made was modified so as to conform to the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. The Management appeared before the Labour Court. It filed a written statement. One of the objections raised by the respondent-Management related to the territorial jurisdiction of the Chandigarh Administration to make the reference. On the pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court framed as many as nine issues. The first of these issues was:

"Whether the Chandigarh Administration has no jurisdiction to make this dispute as Administrator had no sufficient material before him? OPM."

On consideration of the matter, the Labour Court concluded that "the service conditions of the petitioner were governed from Delhi office." Accordingly, it decided the aforesaid issue against the petitioner and held that "the present reference is not legally entertainable by this Court." Aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

I have heard Mr. R.L. Batra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Harsh Aggarwal for the respondent-Management. Mr. Nipun Mittal has appeared for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

The Act was promulgated to regulate '' ''certain conditions of service of Working Journalists and other persons employed in newspaper establishments. "Chapter II of the Act prescribes the conditions of service of Working Journalists. Chapter II-A relates to the ''non-journalist'' newspaper employees. Chapter III makes the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 applicable to the newspaper establishments. Chapter IV contains miscellaneous provisions which, inter-alia, provides for the recovery of money due from an employer. Clause 2 of the Section 17 is relevant for the decision of this case. It reads as under:

"(2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act on Law".

u/s 17(2), as reproduced above, the State Government can, on an application or otherwise, make a reference with regard to the amount due to a newspaper employee under the Act. Furthermore, under the Act, the Rules called the ''Working Journalists (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Rules, 1957, have been framed. Under Rule 36, the application has to be submitted in Form ''C'' to the Government of the State where the Central Office or the Branch Office of the newspaper establishment is situated. On a combined reading of the provisions of Section 17(2) and Rule 36 it appears that an application can be made by the aggrieved journalist to the State Govt. where the Central or Branch Office of the Newspaper establishment is situated, and the said Govt. is competent to refer the matter to the Court.

In the present case, an objection was raised by the respondent - Management that the Chandigarh Administration had no jurisdiction to refer the dispute or make a reference. The onus of proving this issue was on the Management. While dealing with this matter, the Management had to show that it did not have a Branch office at Chandigarh. It has not done so. In fact, no evidence appears to have been led by the Management in this behalf. Its only effort appears to have been to show that the petitioner''s conditions of service were being regulated by the Resident Editor of the Delhi Edition of the newspaper. An effort has been made to point out that he was working under the control of the Delhi Office and every payment etc. was being made under the control of the Delhi Office and every payment etc. was being made to him by the said office. It may be so. Still, the only question that the Labour Court had to determine and decide was as to whether or not the respondent-Management had a Branch Office at Chandigarh. It has failed to consider this aspect. In fact, it appears that the attention of the Labour Court was not drawn to the provisions of Rule 36. As a result, the real issue does not even appear to have been considered. The issue has been decided without even noticing the relevant provision. It cannot be sustained.

In view of the above, the impugned award, which was published in the Gazette of the Government of India on April 5, 1991 (a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P.2 with the writ petition) is set aside. The case is remanded to the Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh for expeditious disposal. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.