Facts
The petitioners were employees of Naidunia Media Limited, which merged with Jagran Prakashan Limited on April 1, 2012
Source reference: p. 5They sought benefits under the Central Government notifications dated 24.10.2008 and 11.11.2011, which recommended pay scales and interim relief (30% of basic pay) for newspaper employees via the Majithia Wage Board
Source reference: p. 5Following the respondent's failure to extend these benefits, the petitioners approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner. A reference was made to the Labour Court on 13.12.2017 to determine the specific amount payable to the petitioners under the Wage Board recommendations
Source reference: p. 5-6However, the Labour Court framed a different issue regarding the "entitlement" of the petitioners and subsequently answered the reference in the negative
Source reference: p. 6The petitioners challenged these awards via writ petitions
Source reference: p. 6Issues
1. Whether the Labour Court erred in law by deciding the petitioners' "entitlement" to benefits instead of determining the "amount payable" as framed in the original reference by the competent government
Source reference: p. 6, para 32. Whether the impugned awards passed by the Labour Court are sustainable given the deviation from the referred question of determination
Source reference: p. 7, para 6Law Applied
The Court applied Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which governs the reference of disputes to Boards, Courts, or Tribunals and mandates that the adjudicating authority must confine its decision to the points specifically referred by the competent government
Source reference: p. 7, para 6-7It further operated under Sections 9 and 13(C) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, which provide the statutory framework for the constitution of Wage Boards and the fixation of wages for newspaper employees
Source reference: p. 5, para 1Reasoning
The High Court observed that the reference made by the competent government specifically directed the Labour Court to calculate and "decide the amount payable" to the petitioners as per the Majithia Wage Board recommendations
Source reference: p. 7, para 6However, the Labour Court exceeded its remit by adjudicating upon the "entitlement" of the employees to receive such benefits in the first instance, rather than performing the duty of quantification as per the reference
Source reference: p. 7, para 7The High Court reasoned that since the Labour Court failed to address the specific question framed under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, its findings were legally unsustainable
Source reference: p. 7, para 7The court emphasized that the determination of the amount was the core task referred, which the lower court neglected
Source reference: p. 7, para 7Holding
The High Court held that the Labour Court's awards were not sustainable as it failed to decide the actual question referred to it
The Court set aside the impugned awards and remitted the matters back to the Labour Court with a direction to decide the specific question for determination framed by the competent government
Source reference: p. 7, para 7The Labour Court was further directed to conclude proceedings within 180 days, providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to all parties
Source reference: p. 7, para 8The High Court clarified it expressed no opinion on the merits of the petitioners' claims
Source reference: p. 7-8, para 9Original Court PDF
MUKESH KUMAR VERMAvsNAIDUNIA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in