Labour Officers lack jurisdiction to adjudicate Majithia Wage Board disputes; Section 17 mandates Labour Court reference.

Respondent No. 4, a part-time Local Correspondent of the petitioner newspaper establishment, claimed post-retirement dues calculated under the Majithia Wage Board recommendations with effect from November 2011.

The Labour Officer, by order dated 17 July 2024, held that the wages paid to respondent No. 4 were not in accordance with the Wage Board recommendations and directed the petitioner to pay the calculated arrears as part of his post-retirement dues.

The petitioner challenged the order under Article 226 of the Constitution, principally contending that the Labour Officer lacked jurisdiction and that any dispute regarding the amount due had to be referred to and adjudicated by the Labour Court under Section 17 of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955 (“1955 Act”).

Whether the Labour Officer, Dhemaji, had jurisdiction to adjudicate respondent No. 4’s claim for arrears under the Majithia Wage Board recommendations and direct payment thereof without a reference to the Labour Court under Section 17 of the 1955 Act?

Whether the question of territorial jurisdiction under Rule 36 of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Rules, 1957 required determination?

Section 17 of the 1955 Act provides the statutory mechanism for recovery of amounts due to newspaper employees: where the amount is undisputed, recovery may proceed administratively, but where a dispute arises regarding the amount due, the appropriate Government must refer the question to the Labour Court for adjudication; recovery may follow the Labour Court’s determination.

In Avishek Raja v. Sanjay Gupta, (2017) 8 SCC 435, the Supreme Court directed that complaints concerning non-implementation of the Majithia Wage Board Award be dealt with through the enforcement and remedial machinery under Section 17 of the 1955 Act.

The principle in Samarjit Ghosh v. M/s Bennett Coleman & Co., (1987) 3 SCC 507 confirms that, where a dispute exists as to the amount due, adjudication by the Labour Court upon a reference is mandatory.

Rule 36 of the 1957 Rules prescribes the form and place for an application under Section 17, but the Court found it unnecessary to examine that issue after determining that the Labour Officer lacked substantive jurisdiction.

The Court found that respondent No. 4’s claim involved a dispute regarding entitlement to and calculation of wages under the Majithia Wage Board recommendations.

Under Section 17 of the 1955 Act, such a disputed claim could not be conclusively determined by the Labour Officer through an administrative order; it required a reference by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court for adjudication.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Avishek Raja required implementation-related complaints concerning the Wage Board Award to follow the statutory mechanism under Section 17, while Samarjit Ghosh clarified that disputed claims must be adjudicated by the Labour Court before recovery can be directed.

Since no reference had been made and the Labour Officer had assumed jurisdiction himself, the impugned order suffered from an apparent lack of jurisdiction, irrespective of the merits of respondent No. 4’s claim.

Consequently, the Court declined to examine the territorial-jurisdiction objection under Rule 36.

The order dated 17 July 2024 was therefore set aside.

The aggrieved party was granted liberty to raise the dispute in accordance with law, in which event the matter was directed to be brought to its logical conclusion through the prescribed statutory mechanism.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed.