Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
PETITIONER:
SAMARJIT GHOSH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
BENNETT COLEMAN & COMPANY AND ANOTHER
DATE OF JUDGMENT29/06/1987
BENCH:
PATHAK, R.S. (CJ)
BENCH:
PATHAK, R.S. (CJ)
KHALID, V. (J)
CITATION:
1987 AIR 1869 1987 SCR (3) 475
1987 SCC (3) 507 JT 1987 (3) 19
1987 SCALE (2)5
ACT:
Labour Law: Working Journalists and Other Newspaper
Employees’ (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provi-
sions Act. 1955: Sub-ss. (1) and (2) of s. 17 read with r.
36 of the Rules framed thereunder--Dispute with regard to
unpaid dues between an employee and his employer-company
which has offices at places falling in different States--The
State Government competent to make a reference to the Labour
Court under sub-s. (2) of s. 17.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant, a working journalist who was appointed on
November, 1961 as a Staff Correspondent in the Calcutta
Office of the respondent-company while working as such at
Calcutta, applied on 29 April, 1975 to the Government of
West Bengal under sub-s. (1) of s. 17 of the Working Jour-
nalists and Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 for recovery of the
unpaid portion of his wages relating to the period April
1968 to February 1973. While the conciliation proceedings
were on, he was promoted and transferred to Pune on 16
February, 1976. The Conciliation Officer reported the fail-
ure of the proceedings before him on 16 November, 1976 and
the Government of West Bengal made a reference under sub-s.
(2) of s. 17 of the Act to the First Labour Court, West
Bengal on 23 August, 1977 for the adjudication of the dis-
pute between the parties. The preliminary objection raised
by the respondent-company that the Government of West Bengal
was not competent to make the reference was rejected by the
Labour Court. The respondent-company’s writ petition chal-
lenging ’the order of the Labour Court was allowed by a
Single Judge whose decision was affirmed in appeal by the
Division Bench of the High Court.
Allowing the appeal by special leave and dismissing the
writ petition of the respondent-company, this Court.
HELD: (i) Sub-s. (1) ors. 17 of the Act requires that an
application by the newspaper-employee complaining that an
amount due to him has remained unpaid by the employer should
be made to the State Government. Which is the State Govern-
ment to which such application lies is
476
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
indicated by r: 36 of the Rules made under the Act and that
rule provides that an application under s. 17 of the Act
shall be made to the Government of the State where the
central office or the branch office of the newspaper estab-
lishment in which the newspaper employee is employed is
situated. It is the location of the central office or the
branch office in which the newspaper employee is employed
which determines which State Government it will be. The rule
works in favour of the convenience of the newspaper employ-
ee. [478C-E]
(ii) Sub-s. (2) of s. 17 provides that if any question
arises as to the amount due under the Act to a newspaper
employee from his employer, the State Government may refer
the question to any Labour Court, constituted by it under
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding
law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial
disputes in force in the State. If a question arises as to
the amount due, it is a question which arises on the appli-
cation made by the newspaper employee, and the application
having been made before the appropriate State Government, it
is that State Government which will call for an adjudication
of the dispute by referring the question to a Labour Court.
The State Government before whom the application for recov-
ery is made is the. State Government which will refer the
question as to the amount due to a Labour Court. [478F-G;
479C-D]
In this case, the appellant was employed at the Calcutta
branch of the respondent-company. He made the application to
the Labour Department of the Government of West Bengal for
recovery of the unpaid portion of his wages. When the ques-
tion arose as to the amount due to the appellant, the Gov-
ernment of West Bengal made the reference for adjudication
to the First Labour Court, West Bengal. Upon the construc-
tion of sub-s. (2) of s. 17 as indicated at (ii) above, it
is beyond dispute that the Government of West Bengal is
competent to make the reference. The High Court erred in
holding that the reference was without jurisdiction and that
it was the State of Maharashtra which was competent to make
the reference. [479E-G]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2794 of
1986.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.1.1985 of the
Calcutta High Court in E.M.A.T. No. 19 of 1983.
Appellant in person.
G.B. Pai, P.R. Seetharaman and Ms. Deepa Chhabra for the
Respondents.
477
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PATHAK, CJ. This appeal is directed against the judgment
and order of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court
affirming on appeal the judgment and order of a learned
Single Judge of the High Court declaring that the reference
made by the Government of West Bengal in the dispute raised
by the appellant is incompetent and invalid.
The appellant is a working journalist employed by the
respondents, Messrs. Bennett Coleman and Company Limited.
The registered office of the company is at Bombay and its
press is located in Calcutta. The sales office of the compa-
ny is situated in Calcutta. On 1 November, 1961 the appel-
lant was appointed a staff correspondent in the Calcutta
office of the company. The letter of appointment dated 9
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
November, 1961 was issued by the company from its registered
office at Bombay. Subsequently, the appellant was promoted
to the post of Industrial Correspondent, Pune and was trans-
ferred from Calcutta to Pune from 16 February, 1976. Upon
transfer to Pune the appellant received his remuneration and
allowances from the Pune office of the company, and he was
under the direct control and supervision of the registered
office of the company situated in Bombay.
While the appellant was in Calcutta and before his
transfer on promotion to Pune the appellant applied to the
Labour Department, Government of West Bengal on 29 April,
1975 under sub-s. (1) of s. 17 of the Working Journalists
and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to
as "the Act") for recovery of the unpaid portion of his
wages relating to the period April, 1968 to February, 1973
from the employer company. On 14 May, 1975 the Government of
West Bengal initiated conciliation proceedings. The employer
company participated in the conciliation proceedings and a
joint conciliation meeting was held before the Conciliation
Officer, Calcutta. The appellant was transferred to Pune
while the report of the conciliation proceedings was still
awaited. On 16 November, 1976 the Conciliation Officer
reported failure of the conciliation proceedings and recom-
mended that the dispute be referred to the Labour Court
under sub s. (2) of s. 17 of the Act. Accordingly, the
Government of West Bengal made a reference on 23 August,
1977 to the First Labour Court, West Bengal for the adjudi-
cation of the dispute between the parties. An objection was
raised by the employer company before the First Labour Court
that the reference was incompetent as the Government of West
Bengal had
478
no power to make the reference. On 11 July, 1980 the First
Labour Court rejected the objection. The order was chal-
lenged by the employer company by a writ petition filed in
the High Court. By his judgment and order dated 5 August,
1982, the learned Single Judge held that the reference was
incompetent. That view was affirmed by a Division Bench of
the High Court in appeal. And now this appeal by special
leave.
The question whether the Government of West Bengal was
empowered to make a reference of the dispute between the
appellant and the employer company must be determined by the
provisions of the Act in their application to the facts of
this case. Section 17 of the Act makes provision for the
recovery of money due to a newspaper employee from his
employer. Sub-s. (1) requires that an application by the
newspaper employee complaining that an amount due to him has
remained unpaid by the employer should be made to the State
Government, and provides that if the State Government is
satisfied that any amount is so due it is empowered to issue
a certificate for that amount to the Collector, and there-
upon the Collector must proceed to recover that amount in
the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. Which is the
State Government to which such application lies is indicated
by Rule 36 of the Rules made under the Act. Rule 36 provides
that an application under s. 17 of the Act shall be made to
the Government of the State where the Central Office or the
Branch Office of the newspaper establishment in which the
newspaper employee is employed is situated. It is the loca-
tion of the Central Office or the Branch Office in which the
newspaper employee is employed which determines which State
Government it will be. The Rule works in favour of the
convenience of the newspaper employees.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
Sub-sections (2) and (3) of s. 17 provide:
"(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 or law.
479
(3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be
forwarded by it to the State Government which
made the reference and any amount found due by
the Labour Court may be recovered in the
manner provided in sub-section (1)."
When all the provisions of s. 17 are considered together
it is apparent that they constitute a single scheme. In
simple terms the scheme is this. A newspaper employee, who
claims that an amount due to him has not been paid by his
employer, can apply to the State Government for recovery of
the amount. If no dispute arises as to the amount due the
Collector will recover the amount from the employer and pay
it over to the newspaper employee. If a question arises as
to the amount due, it is a question which arises on the
application made by the newspaper employee, and the applica-
tion having been made before the appropriate State Govern-
ment it is that State Government which will call for an
adjudication of the dispute by referring the question to a
Labour Court. When the Labour Court has decided the ques-
tion, it will forward its decision to the State Government
which made the reference, and thereafter the State Govern-
ment will direct that recovery proceedings shall be taken.
In other words the State Government before whom the applica-
tion for recovery is made is the State Government which will
refer the question as to the amount due to a Labour Court,
and the Labour Court upon reaching its decision will forward
the decision to the State Government, which will then direct
recovery of the amount.
Turning to the facts of the present case, it is clear
that the application under sub-s. (1) of s. 17 was made on
29 April, 1975 when the appellant was employed at the Cal-
cutta Branch of the employer company. He made the applica-
tion to the Labour Department of the Government of West
Bengal for recovery of the unpaid portion of his wages. When
the question arose as to the amount due to the appellant,
the Government of West Bengal made the reference for adjudi-
cation to the First Labour Court, West Bengal. Upon the
construction of sub-s. (2) of s. 17 which has found favour
with us, it is beyond dispute, we think, that the Government
of West Bengal is competent to make the reference. In our
opinion the High Court erred in holding that the reference
was without jurisdiction and that it was the State of Maha-
rashtra which was competent to make the reference. The
application for recovery was rightly made by the appellant
before the Government of West Bengal because he was then
employed by the Branch Office of the employer company,
Calcutta. Once we hold that the application was rightly made
before the Government of West
480
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
Bengal, the further conclusion must necessarily follow that
it was the Government of West Bengal which possessed the
power to refer the question for adjudication. It seems to us
that the High Court omitted to appreciate the inter-rela-
tionship between the different provisions of s. 17 and the
fact that if the proceeding under sub-s. (1) of s. 17 was
commenced rightly before a State Government it was that
State Government alone which should make a reference to a
Labour Court for adjudication.
A number of cases have been placed before us, but we do
not consider it necessary to refer to them having regard to
the view taken by us upon a plain analysis o.f the statutory
provisions.
We may note that the fundamental question before us is
whether the Government of West Bengal was competent to make
the reference. We do not consider it appropriate to decide
any other questions arising upon the reference since the
reference must, pursuant to this judgment, be considered to
be pending still and those questions can be raised there.
Our attention has been drawn by learned counsel for the
employer company to an award of the Labour Court of West
Bengal where, it is said, the question covered by the im-
pugned reference has already been concluded on its merits.
That is a submission which is open to the employer company
during the proceedings before the Labour Court upon the
impugned reference. We are concerned with a limited point
and we need go no further.
In the result the appeal is allowed, the judgment and order
dated 18 January, 1985 of the Division Bench of the High
Court and the judgment and order dated 5 October, 1982 of
the learned Single Judge of the High Court are set aside and
the writ petition filed by the employer company is dis-
missed. The Labour Court will now proceed to dispose of the
reference expeditiously. The appellant is entitled to his
costs of this appeal and of the entire proceedings before
the High Court.
P.S.S. Appeal
allowed.
481