Labour Court Must Decide Specific Reference Question Under Industrial Dispute Act; Entitlement Determination Alone Is Unsustainable

The petitioners were employees of Naidunia Media Limited, which merged with Jagran Prakashan Limited on April 1, 2012

Following notifications issued by the Ministry of Labour in 2008 and 2011 regarding interim relief and wage fixation for newspaper employees under the Working Journalists Act, 1955, the petitioners sought benefits based on the Majithia Wage Board recommendations

When the respondent failed to extend these benefits, the petitioners approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner

A reference was made to the Labour Court on December 13, 2017, specifically to determine the amount payable to the employees under the recommendations

However, the Labour Court framed a different issue regarding the petitioners' entitlement to the benefits and subsequently answered the reference in the negative

The petitioners challenged these awards via writ petitions

Whether the Labour Court erred in law by deciding the "entitlement" of the petitioners instead of determining the "amount payable" as framed in the original reference by the competent Government?

The Court applied Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which governs the reference of disputes to Boards, Courts, or Tribunals.

Sections 9 and 13(C) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, regarding the constitution and implementation of Wage Board recommendations.

The core principle applied is that a Labour Court must adjudicate upon the specific question referred to it by the competent Government and cannot deviate to substitute its own issues.

The High Court observed that the reference made by the competent Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act explicitly directed the Labour Court to determine the specific amount payable to the petitioners as per the Majithia Wage Board recommendations.

However, the Labour Court failed to address this specific question and instead focused on the petitioners' threshold entitlement to receive such benefits.

The High Court reasoned that because the Labour Court deviated from the mandate of the reference and failed to decide the actual question referred (the quantum of payment), the resulting awards were legally unsustainable.

Consequently, the impugned awards were set aside. The matters were remitted back to the concerned Labour Court with directions to decide the original reference (determination of amount) within 180 days, providing sufficient opportunity for hearing to both parties.