State governments cannot delegate power to refer newspaper employees’ wage disputes to Labour Courts, Supreme Court rules; ongoing Maharashtra cases to be reviewed afresh

The appeals arose from judgments of the Bombay High Court and its Aurangabad and Nagpur Benches concerning references made to Labour Courts under Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (“Working Journalists Act”).

By notification dated 11 May 2016, the Government of Maharashtra delegated to specified Additional and Deputy Commissioners of Labour the power to make references to Labour Courts under Section 17(2).

References were thereafter made by those authorities in disputes concerning amounts allegedly payable by newspaper establishments to employees.

The Aurangabad Bench set aside, inter alia, an award of the Labour Court, while the Nagpur Bench upheld a preliminary objection challenging the competence of the authority that made the reference.

The Supreme Court consolidated the appeals because they involved the common question whether the State Government could delegate its power of reference under Section 17(2).

Whether Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists Act empowered the State Government to delegate to another authority its power to refer a dispute concerning the amount due to a newspaper employee to a Labour Court

Whether references and proceedings already initiated pursuant to the Maharashtra Government’s delegation notification should be terminated once that delegation was held invalid

Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists Act permitted the State Government to specify an authority to satisfy itself that an undisputed amount was due and to issue a recovery certificate.

In contrast, Section 17(2) expressly vested the power to refer a dispute regarding the amount due in the State Government and contained no provision authorising delegation; under the principle expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the express delegation power in sub-section (1) excluded an implied delegation power under sub-section (2).

Section 17(3) further required the Labour Court to forward its decision to the State Government “which made the reference,” confirming that the reference-making power belonged to the State Government.

The Court relied on Samarjit Ghosh v. Bennett Coleman & Co., which treated Section 17 as a sequential and integrated statutory scheme, and on Pradyot Kumar Bose v. Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court and Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd. v. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation for the principle that statutory powers cannot be delegated or sub-delegated without express authority or necessary implication, although officials may collect materials and assist the competent authority.

Beneficial legislation cannot be interpreted contrary to clear statutory language.

The Court held that Section 17(1) and Section 17(2) operated as successive stages of one recovery scheme, but the limited delegation authorised under sub-section (1) could not be carried forward into sub-section (2).

Under sub-section (1), the specified authority could deal with an undisputed claim; once the employer disputed liability or quantum, that authority became functus officio and could only place the relevant materials before the State Government.

The decision whether a genuine dispute existed and whether it warranted adjudication by a Labour Court required satisfaction to be reached by the State Government itself.

The Maharashtra notification did not merely authorise subordinate officers to implement a decision already taken by the State Government; it vested them with the ultimate power to make the reference, thereby removing the statutory responsibility from the State Government.

The Court therefore found the delegation under Section 17(2) invalid.

Nevertheless, because the references had been made pursuant to an operative government notification, numerous proceedings had progressed, and the Working Journalists Act had subsequently been repealed with effect from 21 November 2025, the Court exercised its power under Article 142 to avoid restarting all proceedings from the beginning.

The impugned High Court judgments were affirmed in principle, but the pending Labour Court and High Court proceedings were not automatically terminated.

Exercising Article 142, the Court directed the Government of Maharashtra to independently reconsider every reference made by the specified authorities and record fresh satisfaction as to whether a dispute existed that ought to be referred.

Where such satisfaction was reached, the State Government was to make a fresh reference and the proceedings could continue from their existing stage, subject to further evidence where necessary.

Parties in disposed writ petitions could seek restoration where the State Government certified that a valid reference ought to have been made.

If the State Government concluded that no reference should have been made, the employee could pursue other remedies, with limitation running from communication of that decision.

Concluded proceedings whose references had not been challenged before a higher court could not be reopened merely because of this judgment.

The State Government was directed to complete the exercise within six months, and proceedings were stayed pending its decision.

The appeals were accordingly disposed of on these terms.