Living Media India Limited v. Deputy Labour Commissioner and Another

11. The concerned authority also referred to Clause-6 of the Chapter-XIX of the Majithia Wage Boards Recommendations whereby the classification of the newspaper establishment had been done on the basis of their gross revenue. The classification prescribed in clause-6 of the Majithia Wage Boards recommendations are to the effect that: - “6. Classification of news agency – Newspaper establishment shall be classified under the following classes on the basis of their gross revenue as per paragraph 3 of this Chapter. Class Gross Revenue Class Gross Revenue I Rupees One Thousand Crore and above V Rupees Ten Crore and above but less than Rupees Fifty Crore II Rupees Five Hundred Crore and above but less than Rupees One Thousand Crore VI Rupees Five Crore and Ten Crore III Rupees One Hundred Crore and above but less than Rupees Five Hundred VII Rupees One Crore and Five Crore Crore IV Rupees Fifty Crore and One Hundred Crore VIII Less than Rupees One Crore Note: - Foreign newspaper establishments, those operating in India with their Principal Office outside India, shall be treated as Class I newspaper establishment. Explanation - For the purpose of this clause, (a) No newspaper establishment shall be deemed to be below class VIII. (b) Gross revenue of the circulation and advertisement clubbed together derived by a newspaper establishment, other than the one falling in Class VIII, if the advertisement revenue is less than 50% of its aforesaid revenue, then it should be placed in the class next below the class in which it would fall on the basis of its total average gross revenue.

(c) Gross revenue of the circulation and advertisement clubbed together derived by a newspaper establishment, other than the one falling in classes VII and VIII, if the advertisement revenue is less than 40% of its aforesaid revenue, then it should be placed two classes below the class in which it would fall on the basis of its total average gross revenue. Establishments falling in Class VII whose advertisement is less than 40% of gross revenue will be placed in Class VIII.

(d) Newspaper establishment, other than one falling in

Class VIII, publishing Indian language newspapers from a district town and not having more than two publications and whose advertisement revenue is less than 50 per cent of the total gross revenue, will be placed one class below the class in which it would fall on the basis of its total gross revenue.”

12. Reference was also made by the concerned Authority to the Section 2(5) of the said Majithia Wage Board recommendations to observe that the gross revenue of a newspaper establishment means the total revenue derived by the establishment from all sources of its newspapers business, including circulation and advertisement in its newspaper or newspapers, and also includes the income from the assets acquired and investments made by out of funds earned in the newspaper business.

13. The concerned Authority thus held that the gross average revenue of Living Media India Limited for the financial years 2007- 08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 has been approximately Rs.356.59 crores as per documents filed by the management while preparing the status report to be filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that thus the gross average revenue of Living Media India Limited fell in Class-3 and thus the gross average revenue of Mail Today which was part of this group was not taken. Furthermore, the management had admitted before the concerned Authority that the claimant was in Group-3 of the journalist category. It was further observed vide the impugned order that thus there was no necessity to go into the controversy whether the workman belonged to India Today or Mail Today which was an internal matter of the management. The concerned Authority thus observed to the effect that: -

14. The petitioner through the list of dates and events annexed to the petition has submitted that the respondent no. 2 was appointed to the post of Photographer on 08.11.2000 with the petitioner for its magazine “Teens Today’ and was thereafter promoted as Group Photographer, Senior Photographer and finally as Deputy Photo Editor w.e.f. 09.03.2006.

15. According to the petitioner in view of the better salary and growth opportunities, the respondent no. 2 chose to join Mail Today Newspapers Private Limited from June, 2007. The petitioner submitted further that Mail Today Newspapers Private Limited is a sister concern of the petitioner and is into the business of publishing the tabloid newspaper named Mail Today. The petitioner has claimed that full and final settlement amount of Rs.1,00,512.12 was paid through a cheque bearing no. 013481 dated 06.06.2007 was issued in favour of the respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 2 had been receiving the salary and all the benefits from Mail Today Newspapers Private Limited without any protest or demur and had never raised any objection as to his employment.

16. The petitioner submits that the respondent no. 2 had filed the applications under Section 17(1) of the Act on 03.08.2012 and 26.11.2014 and claimed arrears of Rs.15,34,580/- and Rs. 27,38,713.50 qua the first and second applications u/s 17(1) of the Act, respectively.

17. The petitioner further submits that in support of the transfer of the respondent no. 1, the documents pertaining to the transfer were filed before the respondent no. 1 including payment advice, cheque PF withdrawal with bank payment voucher, list of employees, Form-16 for the year 2007-08 of Mail Today Newspapers Private Limited, Balance Sheets for the years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 of Mail Today Newspapers Pvt. Ltd.

18. Inter-alia, the petitioner submitted that the respondent no. 2 had stopped responding to the directions of the senior officers and also failed to report about his activities and had gone on long unauthorized leave and thus Mail Today Newspapers Private Limited had initiated action against the respondent no. 2 and after serving show cause notices dated 18.03.2015, 26.03.2015 and 02.04.2015, Mail Today Newspapers Private Limited was constrained to terminate the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 28.07.2015. The petitioner further submitted that the termination of the services was issued because of dereliction of service and neglect of duties as a Deputy Photo Editor by the respondent no. 2 but submitted that all the dues of the respondent no. 2 had been cleared by Mail Today Newspapers Private Limited, which had been accepted by the respondent no. 2 before the respondent no. 1 without any protest or demur. Inter-alia, the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 2 directing recovery of arrears to the tune of Rs.11,92,121/- was in complete violation of law laid down by this Court in Shardener Vs. Labour Commissioner 1999(1) LLJ 471. The petitioner thus submitted that the respondent no. 1 had acted in gross violation of the law by exceeding its power conferred u/s 17(1) of the Act as the respondent no. 1 had no power to adjudicate these questions of facts and law.

19. The petitioner has thus submitted that vide the said judgment in Shardener Vs. Labour Commissioner (supra) the Division Bench had categorically held that the competent authority under Section 17(1) acts only as an executing authority and does not have any powers to adjudicate disputed questions of fact or law and that the impugned order of the respondent no. 1 was wholly without jurisdiction as its powers under Section 17(1) are limited only to recover amounts either admitted or already determined by a competent authority or by adjudication in a judicial proceeding. The petitioner has thus submitted that the respondent no. 1 acted in excess of its jurisdiction by not only allowing respondent no. 2 to lead evidence but had also summoned documents in order to adjudicate the disputes which thus vitiated the impugned order.

20. It was further submitted by the petitioner that a serious dispute as to the employment of respondent no. 2 with the petitioner was raised before the respondent no. 1, since the respondent no. 2 had voluntarily joined its sister concern i.e. Mail Today Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2007. The petitioner has further submitted that the respondent no. 1 had erred in law by adjudicating upon the disputed fact that the revenues of group companies have to be taken into consideration for the purposes of determining the classification of the newspaper establishment and of the working journalists.

21. The petitioner further submitted that it is well settled that the respondent no. 1 is not conferred with the power to adjudicate disputes under the Working Journalists and other Newspapers Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to the ‘Act’) and acts merely as an executing authority. The petitioner thus submitted that the respondent no. 1 erred in facts and law to accept the computation of respondent no. 2.

22. Reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioner on the verdict of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Kasturi and Sons (Private) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran AIR 1958 SC 507: 1959 SCR” wherein it has been observed to the effect that: - “8. It is significant that the State Government or the specific authority mentioned in Section 17 has not been clothed with the normal powers of a Court or a tribunal to hold a formal enquiry. It is true that Section 3, sub section (1) of the Act provides for the application of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to or in relation to working journalists subject to subsection (2); but this provision is in substance intended to make working journalists workmen within the meaning of the main Industrial Disputes Act. This section cannot be read as conferring on the State Government or the specified authority mentioned under Section 17 power to enforce attendance of witnesses, examine them on oath, issue commission or pass orders in respect of discovery and inspection such as can be passed by the boards. Courts or tribunals under Industrial Disputes Act. It is obvious that the relevant provisions of Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which confer the said powers on the conciliation officers, boards, Courts and tribunals cannot be made applicable to the State Government or the specified authority mentioned under Section 17 merely by virtue of Section 3(1) of the Act.

9. In this connection, it would be relevant to remember that Section 11 of the Act expressly confers the material powers on the Wage Board established under Section 8 of the Act. Whatever may be true nature or character of the Wage Board - whether it is a legislative or an administrative body the legislature has taken the precaution to enact the enabling provisions of Section 11 in the matter of the said material powers. It is well known that, whenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority powers of a civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature had intended that the enquiry authorized under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry. The fact that the legislature has enacted Section 11 in regard to the Wage Board but has not made any corresponding provision in regard to the State Government or specified authority under Section 17 lends strong corroboration to the view that the enquiry contemplated by Section 17 is a summary enquiry of a very limited nature and its scope is confined to the investigation of the narrow point as to what amount is actually due to be paid to the employee under the decree, award, or other valid order obtained by the employee after establishing his claim in that behalf. We are reluctant to accept the view that the legislature intended that the specified authority or the State Government should hold a larger enquiry into the merits of the employee's claim without conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the necessary powers in that behalf. In this connection, it would be relevant to point out that in many cases some complicated questions of fact may arise when working journalists make claims for wages against their employers. It is not unlikely that the status of the working journalist, the nature of the office he holds and the class to which he belongs may themselves be matters of dispute between the parties and the decision of such disputed questions of act may need thorough examination and a formal enquiry. If that be so it is not likely that the legislature could have intended that such complicated questions of fact should he dealt with in a summary enquiry indicated by Section 17.

10. Section 17 seems to correspond in substance to the provisions of Section 20, sub-section (1) of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, which has now been repealed. Under this section, any money due from an employer under any award or decision of an Industrial Tribunal may be recovered as arrears of land revenue or as a public demand by the appropriate Government on an application made to it by the person entitled to the money under that award or decision. It is clear that the proceedings under Section 20, sub-section (1) could commence only if and after the workman had obtained an award or decision in his favour. We are inclined to think that the position under Section 17 is substantially similar.”

23. Inter-alia, the petitioner has further submitted that the respondent no. 2 had failed to consider that respondent no. 2 was employed with Mail Today Newspapers Private Limited which is an entity of the petitioner and the liability of the Mail Today Newspapers Private Limited could not be fastened upon the petitioner, thus the impugned order is bad in law.

24. It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent no. 1 had erred in law in interpreting the Majithia Wage Board recommendations by coming to an erroneous conclusion to ascertain the class of the employer of the respondent no. 2 by clubbing the petitioner and Mail Today Newspapers Private Limited and categorizing the group as Class-III though it was strenuously contended that Mail Today Newspapers Private Limited was in Class

V.

25. It was thus submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the illegal classification would cause unjust enrichment to the respondent no. 2 as the Majithia Wage Board recommendations had already been implemented and the benefits had been extended to all the employees of the petitioner and Mail Today Newspapers Private Limited and only Rs.37,284/- remained due from Mail Today Newspapers and not from the petitioner.

26. The petitioner thus contended that the respondent no. 1 had proceeded to enter into disputed questions of fact and it also adjudicated upon the disputed questions though the DLC has not been conferred with powers under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists & other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 to adjudicate upon disputed question of facts. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists & other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 does not confer powers of adjudication upon disputed questions of facts to the respondent no. 1 and Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists & other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 expressly provides for a distinct mechanism to ascertain disputed amounts whereby the matter has to be referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. It was thus submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the question of the employment of the respondent no. 2 with the petitioner and the aspect of the category of the employer of the respondent no. 2 and whether the petitioner’s and Mail Today Newspapers Private Limited revenues could be clubbed to report the arrears payable are serious questions and thus the disputed questions ought to have been decided u/s 17(2) of the Working Journalists Act. It was thus submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent no. 1 had no jurisdiction to enter into or adjudicate upon the disputed questions of fact or law or mixed questions of fact or law and that the respondent no. 2 had sought reference to the Labour Court in exercise of powers u/s 17(2) of the Act.

27. The respondent no. 2 through his counter affidavit seeks that the petition be dismissed summarily submitting that he was an employee of the petitioner and denied that he had been transferred from the petitioner to M/s Mail Today Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. The respondent NO. 2 claimed that vide letter of appointment in terms of the Clause-5 dated 08.12.2000 of his appointment letter: -

it having being submitted further by the respondent no. 2 that M/s Mail Today Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. issued no letter of appointment to him nor is there any single communication addressed to him by M/s Mail Today Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. The respondent no. 2 submitted that the petitioner had adopted tricks to compel him to submit his resignation from Living Media Private Limited and to join M/s. Mail Today Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. but the respondent no. 2 had flatly refused to do so and thereafter the petitioner in terms of Clause-5 of his letter of appointment dated 08.12.2000 issued to him claimed that his services stood transferred to Mail Today.

28. The respondent no. 2 submitted that the Clause-5 of the letter of the appointment dated 08.12.2000 reads to the effect: - “5. "TRANSFER OF SERVICE: Your services can be transferred from one job to another, one department to another or from one branch to another anywhere in India whether existing at present or to be set up in future, whether situated in the same city or outside, in any under the supervision and control of our organization or in any of our affiliated concerns, without any extra allowance". Copy of the said letter is Annexure-A hereto”

29. The respondent no. 2 has further categorically denied having received any amount of Rs.1,00,512.12 towards full and final settlement of his account with the Petitioner and claimed that no such amount had ever been offered to him or paid to him by the petitioner and has submitted that the statement and Form-16 issued to him by the petitioner do not reflect the said alleged payment claimed that the respondent no. 2 and that the cheque No.013481 dated 06.06.07 for Rs.1,00,512.12/- had been fabricated by the petitioner. The respondent no. 2 has further submitted that he has sought initiation of contempt of court proceedings against the petitioner for submitting false averments on oath.

30. The respondent no. 2 further submitted that he was compelled to submit in writing that he had “resigned” in view of the factum that the petitioner had stopped depositing the EPF contributions of the respondent no. 2 in his PF account after June, 2007 and that as per the policy of the Employees Provident Fund Organization, if contributions had not been deposited in the PF account for more than 3 months, no interest would be paid by the EPFO on the amount already lying deposited in the account. The respondent no. 2, therefore, sought to withdraw his EPF accumulations and approached the petitioner for withdrawal of the EPF contributions of more than Rs. 5 Lakhs lying deposited in his account with the EPFO but the petitioner insisted that only if the respondent no. 2 mentioned in the Form No. 19 "the reason for his withdrawing the EPF contributions as resignation" only then the petitioner would approve the withdrawal of his PF contributions and as the respondent no. 2 was suffering substantial losses on account of his PF contributions amounting to more than Rs. 5 Lakhs lying deposited without accruing any interest and he would have lost more than Rs.10,000/- per month as interest and that the respondent no. 2 badly needed the money for the higher education of his children but the petitioner refused to recommend a loan from the P.F. account and when the respondent no. 2 approached the petitioner, he was instructed in writing to mention in the withdrawal form prescribed by the EPFO to write as "Resigned" in the column as the reason for withdrawal of his EPF contributions, the respondent no. 2 on the clear written directions of the petitioner, mentioned in the Form No. 19 for withdrawal of the EPF contributions, as "resigned" as the reason for withdrawing his EPF contributions, to save his life time savings. The respondent no. 2 has thus submitted that the same was done under duress, coercion and threats by the petitioner to save his PF savings.

31. The respondent no. 2 has further submitted that the wage board is constituted u/s 9 of the Working Journalists and other Newspapers 1955 and the recommendations are accepted and notified u/s 12 of the said enactment by the Government, the same ranks equal to an award passed by a Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal and notified u/s 17-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that after this procedure is completed it is the authority u/s 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspapers Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 who has to recover the amount due to journalists or the non journalists covered under the said Act and that in order to delay the payment due to the employees the management adopts various means including raising of frivolous objections. The respondent no. 2 has further submitted that he had refused to accept the appointment of Mail Today. He further contended that he was dragged through the length and breadth of India and was issued a malafide order of transfer to Srinagar and he was forced to remain in the most disturbed area of the Srinagar for the last 7 years by leaving his family at Delhi and he was not paid his allowances and legal dues including daily expenses, conveyance etc. for the last 5 years and that he had been made to work on a camera and that the respondent no. 2 had not even been paid the interim relief as per the interim Award notified by the Government of India w.e.f. January, 2008. Inter-alia, it was submitted by the respondent no. 2 that the respondent no. 2 had filed an application u/s 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspapers Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 claiming his wages as awarded by the Majithia Wage Board and his services were terminated. It was further submitted by the respondent no. 2 that the Majithia Wage Board recommendations were challenged by all the powerful news paper managements in the country and the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 07.02.2014 directed the newspaper managements to implement the Award w.e.f. 11.11.2011. The respondent no. 2 further submitted that the petitioner had claimed that it had made full and final payment vide cheque dated 06.06.2007 but the petitioner had deliberately not stated as to when the respondent no. 2 joined the services of Mail Today Newspaper Private Limited either by the beginning of June, 2007 or maximum by July, 2007 and that the petitioner had deliberately not mentioned the alleged date of the joining of the respondent no. 2 with Mail Today Newspaper Private Limited and that the petitioner had infact issued a certificate dated 04.09.2007 to him at Bombay where he was transferred by the petitioner in an effort to harass him.

32. The respondent no. 2 has further categorically denied that the respondent no. 1 had acted in gross violation of law by exceeding its powers conferred u/s 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspapers Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 and submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 14.03.2016 had directed individual employees to approach the authorities under the Working Journalists Act for computation of the amount and reference was made to observations in para 5 of the said order dated 14.03.2016 to the effect: - “We have also taken note of the various interlocutory applications that have been filed alleging wrongful termination of services and fraudulent surrender of the rights under the Wage Board recommendations to avoid liabilities in terms of the order of the Court. As such complaints received till date arc substantial in number, this Court is not in a position to individually examine each case. We, therefore, direct the Labour Commissioner of each of the States to look into all such grievances and on determination of the same file necessary reports before the Court which will also be so filed on or before 12th July, 2016. We grant liberty to each of the individual employees who have filed the interlocutory applications and also such employees who are yet to approach this Court but have a grievance of the kind indicated above to move the Labour Commissioner of the Slate concerned in terms of the present order”

33. The respondent no. 2 further submitted that it was misleading to contend that in Shardener Vs. Labour Commissioner 1999(1) LLJ 471, it has been held that the competent authority under Section 17(1) acted only as an executive authority and did not have any powers to adjudicate disputed questions of fact or law.

34. The respondent no. 2 has further categorically denied that the respondent no. 1 had erred in law by adjudicating upon the disputed facts that the revenue of group companies has to be taken into consideration for the purposes of determining the classification of the newspaper establishment and of the working journalists. Reliance was also placed on behalf of the respondent no. 2 on Clause-5 Chapter- XIX, Section 1 of the Majithia Wage Board Recommendations which dealt with gross revenue of a newspaper establishment (other than news agency) means the total revenue derived by the establishment from all sources of its newspaper business including circulation and advertisement in its newspaper and also includes the income from the assets acquired and investment made by it out of funds earned in the newspaper business. Inter-alia, it was submitted by the respondent no. 2 that the respondent no. 1 had not made any adjudication but had only calculated the amount due to the respondent no. 2 on the basis of the Majithia Wage Board Award. The respondent no. 2 categorically reiterated that he has never joined M/s. Mail Today Newspaper Private Limited. Inter-alia, the respondent no. 2 categorically denied that in view of the better salary and he had chosen to join the sister concern of the petitioner from June, 2007 and submitted that rather the petitioner could not produce any resignation submitted by him from the petitioner nor any appointment letter was issued by M/s. Mail Today Newspaper Private Limited. It was further stated by the respondent no.2 that he had not been informed by the petitioner that by invoking Clause-5 of his letter of appointment dated 08.12.2000 his services has been transferred to Mail Today but no communication in this regard had been issued to him and that he continued to receive the same salary and benefits as he was receiving prior to the alleged date of transfer.

35. The respondent no. 2 further admitted that Mail Today Newspapers Private Limited was a sister concern of the petitioner and was into the business of publishing newspapers Mail Today. The respondent no. 2 also categorically denied that there was any full and final amount of Rs.1,00,512.12 through cheque bearing no. 013481 dated 06.06.2007 issued in his favour. The respondent no. 2 also denied that he had been receiving any salary from Mail Today Newspapers Private Limited. The respondent no. 2 also denied that he had taken unauthorized leave from Mail Today Newspaper Private Limited and thus the Mail Today Newspaper Private Limited had initiated action against the respondent no. 2 and submitted that show cause notices dated 18.03.2015, 26.03.2015 and 02.04.2015 were ever served on him. The respondent no. 2 also categorically denied that his dues had been cleared by Mail Today Newspapers Private Limited and that he had accepted any such dues without any protest or demur and rather submitted that he had challenged the termination of his services, which matter is pending before the Labour Court and that the actual reason for termination of his services was his demand for wages fixed by the Majithia Wage Board Award.

36. The respondent no. 1 also denied his denial of having been employed with Mail Today Newspapers Private Limited can be raised to him of facts, which are to be determined. The respondent no. 2 had submitted that only Rs.37,284/- were due to him but submitted that he had accepted the findings as a compromise though he claimed that the petitioner fell in Class-1.

37. Inter-alia, it was submitted by the respondent no. 2 that the clubbing together of the revenues of the petitioner and Mail Today to ascertain his wages was as per the Majithia Wage Board Award.

38. On a consideration of the entire available record, it is brought forth apparently that the record speaks eloquently that M/s Mail Today Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. belongs to the India Today Group both of which are under one single management. This is so in as much as rightly held by the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum- Authority under The Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, the documents filed before it clearly showed that the India Today Group and M/s Mail Today Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. fall under one single management and that each and every document filed by the management before the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum- Authority under the Act showed that M/s Mail Today Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. falls within the India Today Group.

39. The reply that was submitted on behalf of the management of M/s Mail Today Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. dated 29.04.2013 before the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum- Authority under the Act is on the stationery which shows to the effect:which indicates clearly that M/s Mail Today Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. falls within the India Today Group.

40. Thus, in terms of the Justice Majithia Wage Board recommendations itself of which the implementation had been sought by the respondent no.2 vide its application under Section 17 (1) of the Act in as much as Section 2 Clause 3 thereof makes it apparent however that if there are different units/branches / companies of one classified newspaper establishment in one town or city and adjoining areas, even though carrying different names, they will be treated as single unit of that newspaper establishment.

41. During the course of the proceedings before the Authority under the Act, it was accepted by the management that it fell in Group-3 as submitted on 17.07.2015 and it was accepted equally by either side that the respondent no.2 was also in Group-3 as observed vide para 5 of the impugned order which reads to the effect: “The claimant submitted that the management comes in class-1 of newspaper establishment and his employee group is 1 in the classification of employees. Subsequently he accepted that the management is in class 3 and he himself is in group 3. The management themselves admitted during the course of the proceedings that the claimant is coming in group -3 and this specific admission of the management was recorded in the proceedings dt 17.07.2015.” that the arrears of the Majithia Wage Board for the period from 1.11.2011 till 30.03.2014 had not been paid to the respondent no.2 by the management is not in dispute.

42. Clause 6 of the Majithia Wage Board recommendations which were accepted by the Government of India on 25.10.2011 and notified vide Gazette Notification No.S.O. 2532 (E) dated 11.11.2011 vide Section 2 of Clause-6 thereof in Chapter-19 of the said recommendations provides the classification of the news agency as has already been reproduced in para 11 hereinabove.

43. The management in this case as observed hereinabove admittedly falls in Class-III with the gross revenue of Rs.100 crore and above but less than Rs.500 crore for the accounting years for which the claim had been made and granted i.e. for the period from 11.11.2011 to 30.03.2014. As per Clause-5 of Section 1 of the Majithia Wage Board Recommendations, gross revenue stipulated as “Gross Revenue” of a newspaper establishment (other than news agency) means the total revenue derived by the establishment from all sources of its newspaper business, including circulation and advertisement in its newspaper or newspapers, and also include the income from the assets acquired and investments made by it out of funds earned in the newspaper business.”

44. As observed vide para 8 of the impugned order of the Authority under the Act, it was inter alia observed as follows:- “The gross average revenue of Living Media India Ltd. of financial year 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 has been approximately Rs.

356.59 crores as per documents filed by the management while preparing the status report to be filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Hence, as per above, gross average revenue Living Media India Ltd. falls in class 3 and thus gross average revenue of Mail Today which is part of this group is not taken. However, during the course of the proceedings dated 17.07.2015, the management admitted that the claimant is in group 3 of the journalist category.”

45. Vide para 9 of the impugned order, it was thus observed as follows:- “In view of the fact that the class of the news paper establishment is 3 and the group of the workman also admitted as 3, there is no need to go into the controversy whether the workman belongs to India Today or Mail Today. It is an internal matter of the management.”

46. It was rightly held vide para 10 of the impugned order of the Authority that there was no dispute regarding the wages paid to the claimant during the relevant period from 11.11.2011 to 30.03.2014 in as much as the arrears due to the claimant in terms of the Majithia Wage Board recommendations had admittedly not been paid to the claimant i.e. the respondent no.2 and that there was no need at all to enter into the realm of the controversy whether the workman belonged to India Today Group or M/s Mail Today Newspapers Pvt. Ltd.. It is essential to observe that the said observations made by the Authority i.e. Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum- Authority under the Act in relation to the said aspect was and is apparently correct in view of the Clause 3 Section II of Chapter 19 of the Majithia Wage Board recommendations already referred to hereinabove.

47. The contention thus, in the circumstances, raised on behalf of the petitioner that the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum- Authority under the Act had misconstrued the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act and had exceeded its jurisdiction and traversed into the jurisdiction of the Labour Court constituted by the State Government under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, cannot be accepted in as much as Section 17(1) of the said Act also requires the ‘satisfaction’ of the Authority under Section 17(1) of the Act that any amount is due and on the said amount being due, it is for the Authority under Section 17(1) to issue a certificate to that effect to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as arrears of land revenue. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that the Authority under Section 17(1) of the Act is not even to satisfy itself that an amount is due.

48. As already observed hereinabove, it has been held by the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum- Authority under the Act that there was no dispute in the present circumstances.

49. The observations in Kasturi and Sons (Private) Ltd. (Supra) vide para 9 thereof have already been adverted to hereinabove. It is essential to observe that the embargo on the Authority under the Act is in relation to the complicated question of facts that may arise inclusive in relation to the status of the working journalists, the nature of office he holds and class to which he belongs which may be a matter of dispute between the parties and for the decision of such disputes question of fact may need thorough examination and a formal enquiry and that the legislature could not have intended that such complicated question of fact be dealt with in a summary enquiry in terms of Section 17(1) of the Act. However, as has rightly been observed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum- Authority under the Act in the circumstances of the instant case, the records spelt out very clearly that there was no dispute whatsoever neither in relation to the class to which the management belongs to nor in relation to the class to which the working journalist belongs to nor in relation to the wages of the working journalist nor in relation to the aspect that arrears in terms of the Majithia Wage Board recommendations for the period from 11.11.2011 to 30.03.2014 were due. It is essential to observe that the provisions of Section 17 of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 are virtually identical to the provisions of Section 33 C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The two provisions read to the effect: Section 17:-

50. Section 20(1) of the Industrial Dispute Appellate Tribunal Act, 1950 which has since been replaced and of which reference was made in the verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kasturi and Sons (Private) Ltd. (Supra) as also in Central Bank of India Ltd. Vs. P.S. Rajagopalan and Ors., a verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1964 SC 743 which all take into account the provisions of Section 20(2) of the Industrial Dispute Appellate Tribunal Act, 1950, Sections 33 C (1) and 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as well as the verdict in Kasturi and Sons (Private) Ltd. (Supra) which takes into account the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with reference thereof in para 11 of the said verdict which read to the effect: “In this connection we may also refer to the provisions of s. 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947). sub-s. (1) of s. 33C has been added by Act 36 of 1956 and is modelled on the provisions of s. 17 of the present Act. Section 33C, sub-s. (2), however, is more relevant for our purpose. Under s. 33C, sub-s. (2), where any workman is entitled to receive from his employer any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money, the amount at which such benefit may be computed may, subject to any rules made under this act, be determined by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government, and the amount so determined should be recovered as provided for in subs. (1). Then follows sub-s. (3) which provides for an enquiry by the Labour Court into the question of computing the money value of the benefit in question. The Labour Court is empowered under this sub-section to appoint a commissioner who shall, after taking such evidence as may be necessary, submit a report to the Labour Court, and the Labour Court shall determine the amount after considering the report of the commissioner and other circumstances of the case.. These provisions indicate that, where an employee makes a claim for some money by virtue of the benefit to which he is entitled, an enquiry into the claim is contemplated by the Labour Court, and it is only after the Labour Court has decided the matter that the decision becomes enforceable under s. 33C(1) by a summary procedure.”, bring forth that it is apparent that it is only when a dispute exists in relation to a claim made by working journalist, which is refuted by the management of the newspaper that the embargo of Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 applies to powers exercised under Section 17(1) of the said enactment.

51. However, where the record speaks eloquently that there does not exist any such dispute, the specific requirement of the satisfaction of the Authority under Section 17 (1) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 cannot be ignored as already observed hereinabove. As in the instant case, it has been held that there exists no dispute and merely the submission that a dispute exists does not bring forth a dispute when the records speak that there is no such dispute.

52. In the circumstances, it is apparent that there is no infirmity in the impugned order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum- Authority under the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper 1955.

53. The petition bearing no. W.P.(C) 4048/2016 seeking the setting aside of the order dated 12.04.2016 as modified vide order dated 28.04.2016, is thus declined and CM.APPL.17072/2016 seeking a stay of the operation of the impugned order is likewise declined.

54. The amount sought to be recovered by the respondent no.2/working journalist in terms of the impugned order amounting to Rs.11,92,121/- which were to be recovered as the arrears of land revenue has already been deposited by the petitioner in terms of the order dated 29.09.2016, of which a sum of Rs.25,000/- has been released to the respondent no.2 towards litigation expenses. In terms of order dated 20.01.2017, the balance amount of Rs.11,67,121/- is thus directed to be released to the respondent no.2 by the Registry on production of proof of his identity.

55. The TCR be returned. ANU MALHOTRA, J