http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 20  

PETITIONER: PRESS TRUST OF INDIA AND ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT23/04/1974

BENCH: REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN BENCH: REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN DWIVEDI, S.N.

CITATION:  1974 AIR 1044            1975 SCR  (3) 499  1974 SCC  (4) 638

ACT: Working    Journalists   (Conditions   of    Service)    and Miscellaneous    Provisions   Act   (45   of    1955),    s. 10--Recommendation  by Wage Board of wages etc.  of  working Journalists--Reasonableness of--Classification of P.T.I.--If violative of Art. 14. Practice  and  Procedure--Substitution  of  shareholder   of company  affected  as petitioner to challenge order  on  the basis of Art. 19--Propriety.

HEADNOTE: The  Central Government by an order dated October 27,  1967, accepted substantially the recommendations of the Wage Board constituted   under   S.  9  of  the   Working   Journalists (Conditions  of Service) and Miscellaneous  Provisions  Act, 1955, in respect of wages etc. of working journalists.   The Press Trust of India (P.T.I.) and the Indian National  Press Ltd.,  filed  writ petitions challenging the  order  of  the Government  accepting the recommendations.  The P.T.I.  con- tended  that,  (1)  it was  discriminated  against  both  in respect of the classification and in the fixation of  wages; (2)  there was a violation of s. 10 of the Act as  the  Wage Board had not taken into consideration its capacity to  pay; and  (3) the Board exceeded its jurisdiction in awarding  to the employees wages higher than what were demanded. Allowing the writ petition of the P.T.I. and dismissing that of the Indian National Press. HELD:-The order of the Central Government, in so far as the P.T.I. is concernedis  struck  down  and  the   P.T.r. directed  to pay the wages agreed to between the P.T.I.  and its  employees"  from  the  date  when  wages  were  payable according to the recommendation of the Wage Board, till  the wages   are  refixed  by  the  Central  Government  on   the recommendations of another Wage Board.  No case was made out by the Indian National Press that it had no capacity to meet the  wage increase, particularly when it had been placed  in the appropriate class in which it should have been placed on the basis of its gross profits. [518 D; H] (1)(a) The definition of ’newspaper establishment’  cannot be  drawn  on  for  the  purposes  of  justifying  only  one classification  of  all the establishment included  in  that definition.   Obviously newspapers and. news  agencies  have

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 20  

different functions.  They have different sources of revenue and the services rendered by each are different.  Also,  the broad  classification  may  again  be  subdivided  and  sub- classified  according  to  the  capacity  of  each  of   the categories. [509 A-c] (b)The  Wage Board in its recommendations has stated  that for   the  purposes  of  fixation  of  Wages   for   working journalists,   newspapers  and  news  agencies   should   be classified  in  the manner therein provided  and  that  such classification should be based on the gross revenues for the accounting  years  1963,  1964 and  1965,.   On  this  basis newspapers  and  news  agencies have  been  divided  into  7 classes    class  11  containing  establishments  with  gross revenue  between  Rs. 100 and Rs. 200 lakhs, and  Class  III between Rs. 5.0 and Rs. 100 lakhs. [509 D] (c)The    classification   is   based   on    intelligible differential  namely,  the capacity of each news  agency  to pay;  and  between  News papers and news  agencies,  on  the nature  of the service rendered, the sources of  income  and the  manner in which the service is rendered.  The  criteria for classification also bears a rational relationship to the object to be achieved, namely, wages to be fixed. [510 G] (d)But it is. well established that even where legislative action or any action taken is under any law against a single individual of things or several individual 500 persons   or   things   where  no   reasonable   basis   for classification  may  appear on the face of it  or  deducible from the surrounding circumstances, that action is liable to be struck down as an instance of discrimination. [510 H] Ameerunnissa  Begum  and  Ors. v. Mahboob  Begum  and  Ors., [1953]  S.C.R. 404, Ram Prasad Karavan Sahi and Anr. v.  The State  of  Bihar and Ors. [1953] S.C.R. 1129  and  Shri  Ram Krishna  Dalmia  v. Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar  and  Ors., [1959] S.C.R. 279 at 299. (e)The P.T.I. has been placed in the category of Class  II instead of class III, to which it admittedly belongs.  There is  however, no indication as to what extent the Wage  Board has  considered the relevant materials either of  the  Press Commission, or in an award in the industrial dispute between the   P.T.I.   and   their  workmen,   and   various   other circumstances  and representations made by the P.T.I.,  such as its inability to increase subscriptions and want of legal means  to  compel  any  increase.   Whether  the   financial potentiality  of the P.T.I. was considered as the basis  for including  it in class 11 category instead of in  class  III category,  contrary to the criteria prescribed by  the  Wage Board  itself, is also not evident from the  recommendations of  the Board.  AR that is discernible is that  because  the P.T.I.  has  the  status of a national  news  agency,  which caters  even  for top class papers, it should be  placed  in class  II  category.  How the position of the  P.T.I.  as  a national  news  agency  has any relevance  to  the  criteria relatable  to its gross revenue has not been specified,  nor is it ascertainable as to how the catering to the top  class papers  would  increase its gross revenue.  The  P.T.I.  was required to continue in class 11 as long as it satisfies the criteria for class III, namely, so long as its gross revenue is  less than Rs. 100 lakhs.  This is arbitrary and  singles out the P.T.I. for discrimination. [513 D-F] (2)(a)  The yield from subscriptions for the  years  1971, 1972  and  1973  on which the respondents  relied,  are  not relevant  for  fixation of wages in 1967,  though  they  may justify a wage revision by another Board. [514 C-D] (b)The  Wage Board itself had stated that Rs.  6.78  lakhs

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 20  

per  annum  would be the recurring  financial  burden  which would  have  to  be borne by the P.T.I. on  account  of  the implementation of its final proposals.  It could not be con, tended by the respondents that this amount is the  estimated burden on the basis of implementation of the recommendations of  the  Wage Board for both working  Journalists  and  non- working journalists, and that as far as working  journalists are concerned, the burden will amount to only Rs. 3.48 lakhs which is less than the average profit of Rs. 3.67 lakhs.  No doubt  the  wage  increases will have to  be  met  from  the revenue  and  only thereafter the profits can  be  computed. But whether the burden of Rs. 6.78 lakh is in respect of the working  journalists or in respect of both the  working  and non  working  journalists, it is none the  less  the  burden which  the  P.T.I. has to bear.  In  judging  the  financial capacity of the employer one has to look at the burden as a. whole.  It cannot be said that the establishment should  pay the  working  journalists first the  recommended  wages  and utilize  whatever  balance remains for payment to  the  non- working journalists irrespective of whether they can be paid the  wage recommended or not. because, that is not  what  is envisaged  in  the term capacity to pay.   The  Wage  Board, while recognizing that the burden was heavy, assumed without any   discussion   that  the  P.T.I.  could   increase   its subscription and tighten its Organization.  But  assumptions are  not  enough.   What  the Act  says  is,  ascertain  the financial  capacity  and  fix the wages  according  to  that capacity. [514 G-Hffi 515 B-C] Express  News papers (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. The Union  of  India and Ors. (1959) S.C.R. 12, followed. (3)The  impugned  order  of the  Central  Government  also suffers  from  the  infirmity  that  it  has  accepted   the recommendations  of the Wage Board when it has prescribed  a wage  higher  than that asked for by the  employees  of  the P.T.I.   Section   10  of  the  Act  confers  a   right   of representation  on  both  employers and  employees  and  has prescribed  a  procedure  for  calling  upon  the  newspaper establishment  and  working journalists  and  other  persons interested in the fixation or revision of wages for  working Journalists  to make representations and there.after  it  is Incumbent   on  the  Board  to  take  into   account   those representations and examine the material placed before it in the light of those representations for 501 A    making  its recommendations.  Any infringement of  this procedural safeguard would affect its recommendations.   The employers  could only meet the claim of the  employees,  but could  not  meet the recommendation for a wage  higher  than that asked for.  A law providing reasonable restrictions  in the  exercise of the right conferred by Art. 19 may  contain substantive  provisions  as well as  procedural  provisions. The reasonableness of the restriction whether  substantively or  procedurally has to be judged from the point of view  of the right that has been in fact restricted. [517 F-H] In the present case, the recommendations being in excess  of what the employees themselves demanded and being beyond  the financial  capacity of the establishment, are  unreasonable. The order of the Central Government, in so far as the P.T.I. is  concerned, is violative of their fundamental rights  and must be struck down. Dr.   N. B. Khare v. The State of Delhi, [1950]  S.C.R.  521 followed. (4)The  petitions were originally filed with two  affected persons  as the second Petitioner in each of the writs.   On the death of one and withdrawal of the other, petitions were

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 20  

filed to substitute a share holder of the 1st petitioner  in each  writ,  as  the  2nd  petitioner.   A  shareholder  can challenge  the order if the restriction on his  right  under Art.19(1)(f) is unreasonable.  If the impugned order  places a  heavy burden on the resources of the company or the  wage has  been  fixed  without  taking  into  consideration   the capacity  to  pay,  or where a wage  higher  than  what  the Journalists asked for is fixed without hearing the employer, then  that  burden  will affect the  shareholders.   In  the interests of justice, balance of convenience and  preventing the  prolonging  of  litigation  the  Court  is   therefore, justified in granting the substitution of petitioners prayed tot in the petitions. [506 G-A; 507 D]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  2102  of 1968. Appeal  by  Special  Leave from the  Order  dated  the  27th October,  1967  of  the Government  of  India  (Ministry  of Labour, Employment and.  Rehabilitation) made under  Section 12(1)  of  Working Journalists (Conditions  of  Service  and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955 (45 of 1955).                             AND WRIT PETITIONS NOS. 37 AND 40 OF 1968 Petitions Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. G.B.  Pai,  A.  G. Meneses, 0. C.  Mathur,  and  Ravinder Narain, for the appellant/petitioners. Lal Narain Sinha, Sol.  Gen. of India, Girish Chandra Mathur and S.    P. Nayar for Respondent No. 1 M. K. Ramamurthy and J. Ramamurthy for Respondent No.2 K.   Rajendra   Chaudhry,   for  the   Intervener   (In   C. A. 2102/68). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.-The appeal and the writ petition No. 40 of 1968 are by the Press Trust of India, while writ petition No. 37 of 1968 is by the Indian National Press (Bombay) Ltd. The appeal and the writ petitions challenge the order  dated October 27, 1967 issued by the first respondent-the Union of India, Ministry of 502 Labour, Employment and Rehabilitation (Department of  Labour and  Employment) accepting the recommendations of  the  Wage Board  constituted  under s. 9 of  the  Working  Journalists (Conditions  of Service) and Miscellaneous  Provisions  Act, 1956,  (45 of 1955)herein-after referred to as ’the  Act’-as violating Arts. 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, of India. The  order accepting the recommendations in respect  of  the wages,  scales  of pay etc. of the working  journalists  was subject  to certain minor modifications  therein  specified, being  modifications  which in the opinion  of  the  Central Government  did  not  effect important  alterations  in  the character of the recommendations.  The second respondent  is the Indian Federation of Working Journalists. At  the outset a preliminary objection was raised on  behalf of  the  first respondent, which was also supported  by  the second respondent, that the appeal is not maintainable under Art.  136  of  ’the Constitution, inasmuch  as  the  Central Government which passed the order dated October 27, 1967  is neither  a Court nor a Tribunal, and the order passed by  it is  not  a judicial order but a statutory order a  piece  of subordinate  legislation.   It may here  be  mentioned  that caveats  were  entered into at the time when  special  leave petitions  came for hearing on September 26, 1968, and  this

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 20  

Court granted leave on that day subject to the right to urge the  preliminary objection as to the maintainability of  the appeals.   So  far as the Writ petitions are  concerned,  an objection has also been raised that as the second petitioner A. B. Nair in, writ petition No. 37 of 1968 had died  during the  pendency  of the petition. arid as an  application  had been  filed in, writ petition No. 40 of 1968 to  delete  the name of the second petitioner Uma Shankar Dikshit, the first petitioner  in both the petitions being  limited  companies, the  reliefs claimed could only be confined to Arts. 14  and 31  of the Constitution and not to Art. 19 under  which  the guarantee  of  fundamental  rights is only  available  to  a citizen  of India, which the limited companies are  not,  In order to appreciate these objections it is necessary to  set out certain provisions of law and Indisputable facts. Under  s. 9 of the Act, there is power to constitute a  Wage Board  for fixing or revising rates of wages in  respect  of working  journalists.   Once  the Board  is  constituted  it shall,  by  a notice published in such manner as  it  thinks fit,   call  upon  newspaper  establishments   and   working journalists and other persons interested in the fixation  or revision  of rates of wages of working journalists  to  make such representations as they may think fit (s. 10(1)); every such  representation shall be in writing and shall  be  made within  such period as the Board may specify in  the  notice and  shall state the rates of wages which in the opinion  of the  person making the representation, would  be  reasonable (s.  10(2)).  After taking into account the  representations and after examining the materials, the Board shall make such recommendations  as it thinks fit to the Central  Government for  the fixation or revision of rates of wages with  effect from a date as may be specified by the Board (s. 10(3)).  It is  further  provided  in  s.  10(4)  that  in  making   any recommendations to the Central Government, the 503 Board  shall  have  regard  to  the  cost  of  living’,  the prevalent  rates  of wages for  comparable  employment,  the circumstances   relating  to  them  newspaper  industry   in different   regions  of  the  country  and  to   any   other circumstances which to the Board may seem relevant. The  Central  Government  had, in  exercise  of  the  powers conferred  under s. 9 of the Act, constituted a  Wage  Board and  after  receiving  the  recommendations  of  that  Board published them in the Gazette of India Extra-ordinary  dated May 11, 1957.  The Commissioner of Labour, Madras, issued  a circular on May 30, 1957, calling upon the management of all newspaper  establishments  in the State to send to  him  the report of the gross revenue for the three years, i.e.. 1952, 1953 and 1954, within a period of one month from the date of the  publication  of the Board’s decision,  i.e.  not  later ’,than Julie 10, 1957.        Thereafter writ petitions were filed  by Express Newspapers (Private Ltd. etc.  challenging the  vires of the Act on the ground that the  provisions  of the Act were violative of the fundamental rights  guaranteed by Arts. 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and 14 of the Constitution.  The decision of the Wage Board was challenged on various grounds which          were in pari materia with the objections that had  been urged by the representatives of the  employers  in the minutes of dissent which       they had appended and  it was contended that the implementation of the decision  would be beyond the capacity of the petitioners and’         would result  in. their total collapse. This Court had in  Express Newspapers  (Private) Ltd. & Anr. v. The Union of India  and others(1) held  certain  provisions of the Act to  be  ultra vires and so far as s.   9(1)  of the Act was concerned,  it

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 20  

held  that  that  section when properly  construed  made  it incumbent on the Wage Board to take into     consideration the capacity of the newspaper industry to pay the rates, and scales  of wages recommended by it and as there was  nothing to, indicate that it had done so, its decision was void  and inoperative.  It further hold that the impugned Act,  judged by  its  provisions, was not such a law but  was  beneficent legislation intended to regulate        the  conditions   of service  of  the, working journalists and  the  consequences that  were adverted to in that case could not be the  direct and inevitable result of it. It also expressed the view that although       there  could be no doubt that liberty of  the press was an essential part   of  the freedom of speech  and expression guaranteed under Art.   19(1) (a) and if the  law were  to single out the press to lay prohibitive burdens  it would fall outside the protection afforded by Art.19(2), the impugned  act  which directly affected the  press  and  fail outside the categories of protection mentioned in Art. 19(2) had       not  the  effect of taking away or  abridging  the freedom of speech and    expression  of the petitioners  and did  not,  therefore,  infringe  Art.  19  (1)  (a)  of  the Constitution.  Nor could it be held to be violative  of-Art. 19  (1)  (g)  of the Constitution in view  of  the  test  of reasonableness laid down by this Court. The  question  whether the functions performed by  the  Wage Board’  are administrative, judicial or  quasi-judicial,  or legislative in character (1)  [1959]S.C. R. 12. 504 was also raised before this Court in the Express  Newspapers case. (supra) This question was said to assume importance on two  grounds,  viz., (i) whether the decisions of  the  wage boards  are  open to judicial review, and (ii)  whether  the principle of audi alteram partem applies     to          the proceedings before the Wage Boards. If the functionsper- formed  by  them  were  administrative  or  legislative   in character,they would not be subject to judicial review, and not only would theynot  be   amenable  to   writs   of certiorari or prohibition under Arts. 32and 226 of  the Constitution, they would also not be amenable tothe exercise  of  special  leave jurisdiction  under  Art.  136. Their  decisions, moreover, would not be vulnerable  on  the ground  that the principle of audi alteram partem,  i.e.  no man  shall  be condemned unheard, was not  followed  in  the course  of  the proceedings before them  and  the  Procedure adopted  by them was contrary to the  principles of  natural justice.   After examining the principles and the  cases  in which the character of the functions of the Tribunals or the Boards as such had been considered, this Court expressed the view  that  it was not possible to hold that  the  functions performed   by  the  Wage  Boards  are  necessarily  of   a, legislative  character.   The  test  for  determining  these controversies was stated thus at pp. 112 & 113:               :......  regard must be had to the  provisions               of the statutes constituting the wage  boards.               If  on a scrutiny of the provisions in  regard               thereto  one can come to the  conclusion  that               they are appointed only with a view to  deter-               mine  the relations between the employers  and               the  employees as the future in regard to  the               wages payable in the employees there would  be               justification  for  holding  that  they   were               performing    legislative   functions.     If,               however,   on  a  consideration  of  all   the               relevant  provisions of the statutes  bringing

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 20  

             the  wage  boards into existence,  it  appears               that  the  powers and procedure  exercised  by               them  are assimilated to those  of  Industrial               Tribunals or their adjudications are  :subject               to  judicial  review at the  hands  of  higher               Tribunals      exercising     judicial      or               quassijudicial   functions,   it   cannot   be               predicated   that   these  wage   boards   are               exercising  legislative  functions.    Whether               they  exercise these functions or not is  thus               to be determined by the relevant provisions of               the  statutes incorporating them and it  would               be  impossible to lay down any universal  rule               which would help in the determination of  this               questions’ Havig  stated  that  even  if on  the  construction  of  the relevant  provisions of the statute the functions  performed by  a  particular  wage  board  are  not  of  a  legislative character,,  this  Court  nonetheless  observed  that   "the question  still remains whether the functions  exercised  by them  are administrative in character or judicial or  quasi- judicial  in  character, because only in  the  latter  event would their decision be amenable to the writ jurisdiction or to the "special leave Jurisdiction above referred to." After examining this aspect at pp. 117-118 the Court said 505               "There   is   considerable  force   in   these               contentions, but we do not feel called upon to               express our final opinion on this question  in               view   of  the  conclusions  which   we   have               hereafter reached in regard to the ultra vires               character  of the decision of the  Wage  Board               itself.  We are however bound to observe  that-               whatever  be  the character of  the  functions               performed  by the Wage Boards whether they  be               legislative   or  quasi-judicial,  if   proper               safeguards are adopted of the nature discussed               earlier, e.g., provisions for judicial  review               or  the  adopting of the procedure as  in  the               case  of  the  Recommendations  of  the   wage               councils in the United Kingdom, or the reports               of  the advisory committees which come  to  be               considered by the administrator under the Fair               Labour  Standards  Act of 1938 in  the  United               States of America, no objection could ever  be               urged  against the determinations of the  wage               boards  thus  arrived at on the score  of  the               principles  of  natural  justice  having  been               violated." After the decision in the Express Newspapers’ case  (supra), Parliament, having regard to the observations made  therein, amended  the provisions of the Act, and by Act 6.5  of  1962 substituted  ss. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 by new sections  8, 9,  10, 11, 12, 13 and 3-A.  The learned  Solicitor  General contends  that after these amendments every person  affected was given an opportunity of hearing.  The Government was not required   to  give  reasons  where  it  was   varying   the recommendations. nor was it necessary for it to give reasons where  it  was  accepting the recommendations  of  the  Wage Board, nor did      any  of  the provisions in ss, 8  to  12 provide  for  a judicial determination of a right,  not  did they lay down any Principles to be applied to the facts  for determining  the rights of the parties.  On the other  hand. these  provisions,  according to him, are in  general  terms which  indicate  the  policy and provide  merely  a  general

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 20  

guidance  leaving  it to the delegated authority,  viz.  the Government, a substantial scope for a policy decision  which can only result in the order being a legislative order.   On this aspect he submitted the propositions (i) in the case of a parent law which provides for a judicial determination  of a  right  it must lay down the necessary  principles  to  be applied to the facts so that the rights of the parties could be  determined;  and (ii) if the parent law in  the  general terms enunciates the policy and provides merely for  general guidance   which  leaves  to  the  delegated   authority   a substantial scope for a Policy decision, then the order is a piece  of subordinate legislation and not a  judicial  order in support of these propositions he has cited the  decisions in’ The Edward Mills, Co. Ltd., Beawar and Ors. v. The State of  Ajmer  and Anr(1) dealing with the  Minimum  Wages  Act. 1948; M/s.  Bhikusa Yamasa Kshatriya v. Seminar Akola Taluka Bidi Kamgar Union(2) and the observations of this Court,  in the Express Newspapers, case, (supra) at pp. 164 & 165.   It is  contended that the investigation leading upto the  order does not involve a decision in terms of the existing law. (1) [1965] 1 S.C.R. 735. (2) [1963] SuPp.  1 S.C.R. 324. 506 nor  is there any requirement of determination  of  existing rights, nor is the existence of a dispute a condition of the exercise  of  jurisdiction.   AR that  is  required  by  the Central  Government Is for it to make an order in  terms  of the  recommendations or subject to such modifications  which the  Central  Government thinks At.  It is  not  a  decision between  any  contending parties, but is  largely  a  policy decision  made within the framework and in the light of  the guidance provided by the Act. The  learned Advocate for the Petitioners on the other  hand contends.  that  the  procedure laid down  in  the  Act  for fixation of the wages is similar to that laid down under the Industrial Disputes Act, the award under which Act has  been held  by this Court to be an award of a Tribunal within  the meaning  of  Art. 136 of the  Constitution,  accordingly  an order made on the recommendations could be challenged by  an aggrieved  party  in  an appeal to this Court by  way  of  a special leave. In  so  far  as the contention that no relief  in  the  writ petition  is  available under Art. 19 is  concerned,  it  is urged  that  the prayer for substitution of Shri  Jai  Kumar Karmani  a  shareholder in the first petitioner  company  in place of the deceased A. B. Nair in writ petition No. 27  of 1968  and  of Shri K. Narendra a shareholder  in  the  first petitioner  company in place of Shri Uma Shankar Dikshit  in writ petition No. 40 of 1968 being manifestly just should be granted.    If  these  prayers  are  granted,  the   second. petitioners  in the respective two writ petitions  can  also challenge  the  impugned  order under Art.  19,  It  may  be mentioned  that  in the first petition the  substitution  is necessitated  by the death of the second respondent  and  in the second as Shri Uma Shankar Dikshit had been appointed  a Central  Minister,  another  shareholder  is  sought  to  be substituted.   It  is  contended on  behalf  of  the  second respondent  that the those petitions should not be  allowed, nor  should the petitioners’ Advocate be Permitted to  raise any  question of infringement of the rights conferred  under Art.  19.  nor  is  it right to  say  that  no  question  of limitation   arises   in  the  matter  of   enforcement   of fundamental   rights.   It  is  also  submitted  that   even otherwise  a shareholder can enforce only his  rights  under the law and no such infringement can arise in this case.  It

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 20  

appears to us that though it may be that no specific mention hadbeen made in the petitions of any of the Articles which are allegedto have been infringed by the impugned  order the  facts stated and the contentions urged in the  petition entitle   the  petitioners  to  invoke  also  Art.  19.    A shareholder  can challenge the order if the  restriction  on his  right  under Art. 19(1) (f) is  unreasonable.   If  the impugned order places a heavy burden on the resources of the company  or  the  wage has been fixed  without  taking  into consideration the capacity to pay. or where the higher  wage than    what  the  journalists asked  for  is  fixed  without hearing  the  employer.  then that burden  will  effect  the shareholders  also. in such a case it will not be  valid  to contend  that the right of a shareholder is  not  infringed. We  think  the petitioners can validly challenge  the  order under Art. 19. 507 Even it we reject the prayer in the second petition  (C.M.P. No.  1034 of 1974 in Writ Petition No. 40 of 1968) as  there is nothing to debar a Central Minister from continuing to be a  petitioner  and the petitioners cannot be  denied  relief under  Art. 19.  Similarly, if we reject the prayer  in  the first petition (Writ Petition No. 37 of 1968) on a technical plea that the second respondent having died no relief can be granted  under Art. 19, there is nothing to prevent  another Writ  petition  being filed by a shareholder  of  the  first petitioner  company,  challenging the impugned  order  under Art.  19.   The  rejection of the  prayer,  therefore,  will merely  prolong  the litigation.  The argument that  such  a petition would be barred by limitation cannot be  considered unless  the circumstances under which a fresh  petition  has been filed and the question whether the petitioner has  been guilty  of laches or tried to purpose his remedy  diligently are examined.  It may be that the circumstances,’ urged  for filling the petition late may justify it being  entertained. In  our view, as the prayer for the substitution in each  of the writ petitions will further interests of justice and  as the  balance  of  convenience  would  justify  granting  the petitions, we accordingly direct the persons named above  to be  brought  on record in the respective writ  petitions  as second petitioners. Now  coming  to the merits of the case, the  petitioners  in writ petition filed by the Press Trust of India (hereinafter referred  to as ’the P.T.I.) complain of violation of  Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution inasmuch as the P.T.I. has been   discriminated   against  both  in  respect   of   the classification  and in the fixation of wages based  on  that classification.  As regards the classification of jobs,  and grouping ,of journalists with functional definitions, it  is contended  that  the recommendations were made by  the  Wage Board  without  the matters being referred to it,  nor  were they based on any case urged by any of the parties appearing before  it.  It is, also contended that the  recommendations of the Wage Board and the consequent decision of the Central Government are, invalid, as the Wage Board has acted totally against  the  provisions of s. 10 of the Act by  not  taking into consideration the representations of the P.T.I.  either in  respect to its capacity to pay or with reference to  the other  circumstances relevant to such wage fixation  as  are mentioned  in  the representations.  This  apart,  the  Wage Board  has arbitrarily discriminated against the  petitioner in  the  matter  of  assessment of  gross  revenue  for  the purposes ,of classification as also in including it  without any  evidence  in Class 11 instead of in Class III.   It  is further submitted that the Board has acted in excess of  its

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 20  

jurisdiction by awarding to the employees wages higher  than what were demanded by them both in respect of the scales  of pay  and increments, that it has not fixed a  rational  wage structure  dependent on relevant considerations, nor was  it based on the capacity of the industry to pay and that it has erred  in classifying differently the P.T.I. and the  United News of India-hereinafter called ’the U.N.I.’-both  national agencies, instead of putting them in the same’ category It"may be mentioned that the Press Commission in its  report Part  I  published in 1954 pointed out that  there  are  two major news agencies, 508 the P.T.I. and the United Press of India.  It was said  that there  was a third news agency, namely, Hindustan  Samachar, which  is  not really comparable to the other two.   It  was further   pointed  out  that  the  P.T.I.   provides   three categories  of services ’A’, ’B’, and ’C’which are  intended to meet the specific requirements of newspapers of different classes.   The  ’A’  service is  the  fullest  service  they provide.   The ’B’ service is: considerably shorter  and  is intended  to carry 50 per cent. of the ’A’ service, and  the ’C’  service is abbreviated service and carries only.  about 25  per cent.  In the case of the United Press of India  the classification  of services does not appear to be  regulated by  any well-defined lines of demarcation and the main  dis- tinction  would  appear to be between those  papers  (mainly located  in Calcutta) which take the full  "local"  coverage that  the United.  Press of India provides and others  which do  not  require  this  special  service.   Another  special feature of the United Press of India service is that it  can be taken with or without the inclusion of foreign news,  the latter  apparently  being intended for  the  convenience  of those papers which take the P.T.I. service and are satisfied with Reuter’s coverage of international events. The three categories of the P.T.I. service      are  charged for on the basis set out below:- ’A’ Service ................Rs. 3,600 per month. ’B’ Service.................Rs. 2,000 per month. ’C’ Service.................Rs. 1,200 per month. These  rates apply to newspapers published in  English,  the subscription for Indian language newspapers is halt that for the same category of service for English papers. The  Press  Commission after examining the  working  of  the P.T.I. and other news agencies made certain  recommendations for  an  increase  ’  in the  rate  of  subscription.   This recommendation,  it has been urged, was made the  basis  for special  classification  by  the Wage Board as  far  as  the P.T.I.  is concerned.  This has been challenged  before  us: According  to the learned Advocate for the petitioners,  the P.T.T.  should  have been placed in Class III  even  if  the criteria laid down by the Wage Board was applied.  The  Wage Board  has, without any justification or any  evidence,  put the P.T.I. in a higher classification, namely, Class IT.  It is, according to the learned Advocate, idle to draw upon the Press  Commission’s recommendations that the  P.T.I.  should increase  its  rates of subscription or to say  that  if  it increases its subscription it will have the capacity to  pay the wages of the higher category of Class II in which it was placed.  The contention of the learned Advocate is that  the P.T.I.  has been singled out for higher  categorization  and put  in  a  separate category which is not  founded  on  any intelligible differentia which distinguishes the P.T.T. from other news agencies or newspapers.  Nor has the  differentia any  rational relation to the objects sought to be  achieved by  the  Act  under which the  Wage  Board  is  constituted,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 20  

because under the Act there is only one class of  "newspaper establishments"  and  there is one definition  of  the  term which under s. 2(d) of the Act means "an establishment under the control of any person or body of persons, 509 whether   incorporated  or  not,  for  the   production   of publication  of  one  of  one  or  more  newspapers  or  for conducting  any news agency or syndicate." We do trot  think that  the,  definition of "newspaper establishment"  can  be drawn   on   for  the  Purposes  of  justifying   only   one classification  of  all the establishment included  in  that definition.    The   definition  of  the   term   "newspaper establishment"  is  provided  for on  understanding  of  the statutory provisions to facilitate brevity and to avoid  all that is mentioned in the definition being repeated over  and over  again.   If the Act itself provides for the  basis  of classification,  namely, the taking into  consideration  the capacity  to  pay or to any ’other circumstances  which  may seem  relevant  to the person making the  representation  in relation  to  his representation as  has  been  specifically provided for in s. 10(2), the recommendations and the  order made  thereon alone indicate the criteria to be  adopted  by the  Board  for classifying the various categories  of  news media specified in the definition.  Obviously newspapers and news agencies have different functions.  They have different sources  of revenue and the services rendered by  each  are, different.  This broad classification between the two  cate- gories may again be sub-divided and sub-classified according to  the capacity of each of the categories.  The Wage  Board in its recommendations has stated that for the purposes  of, fixation  of wages for working journalists,  newspapers  and news  agencies  should be classified in the  manner  therein Provided and that such classification should be based on the gross revenues for the accounting years 1963, 1964 and 1965. The  gross  revenues  of the seven classes  into  which  the respective news media, that is, both for newspapers and  for news agency have been divided are as follows      Class and Gross Revenue I    Rs.  200 faiths and above. II   Rs.  100 lakhs and above and less than Rs. 200 takhs. III, Rs. Rs. 50 lakhs and above and less than Rs. 100 lakhs. IV.  Rs.  25 lakhs and above and less than Rs. 50 lakhs. V.   Rs,  12 lakhs and above and less than Rs. 25 lakhs. VI.  Rs.  5 lakhs and above and less than Rs. 12 lakhs. VII  Rs.  Less than Rs. 5 lakhs. Gross  revenue in the case of newspaper has been defined  by the Board as the entire revenue earned by the  establishment from  one  centre,  and in the case of a  group  the  entire revenue  of  a  unit is to consist of  its  circulation  and advertisement  revenue  and  that part of the  rest  of  the revenue  which  is  proportionate  to  its  circulation  and advertisement  revenue.   In  the case of  news  agency  the entire  revenue  of the establishment  by  whatever  sources earned  by the establishments has to be taken as  the  gross revenue. It  is  submitted  that  there  is  discrimination   between newspapers and news agencies because even the earnings which have nothing to do with the activities of the news agency as such  under  the  above criteria is included  in  the  gross revenue., In this connection it is said that the P.T.I.  has built a building by taking loan from the Government 18- 18--423SCI/75 510 and  has been earning revenue from rents.  Even this  income which  has nothing to do with news agency business has  been

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 20  

taken  into consideration.  At any rate, the  classification of  the newspapers and news agencies which were being  based on average revenues of the three accounting years 1963, 1964 and  1965  (see para 4-3) has not been kept in view  by  the Wage Board in the case of the P.T.I" thus discriminating  it from  other newspapers and news agencies to which the  above criteria  laid  by it was applied.  It was admitted  by  the Wage Board in para 3.9 that, "although the classification of the  news  agencies.  is  the same  as  that  of  the  daily newspapers,  on account of the special position  enjoyed  by P.T.I.,  as  a  national agency it is  placed  in  class  H. Although its present revenue at the end of 1965 is about Rs. 85 lakhs, as a national agency, P.T.I. has to cater even for top  class  papers.   Besides the  aspects  of  objectivity, speed,    accuracy   and   integrity   are    the    special characteristics  which mark the work of Working  journalists in a news agency".  Again, in para 3.33 although it is shown that the average net profit of the, P.T.I. for three, years, i.e.  1963-1965 is Rs. 3.87- lakhs, the financial burden  on account of the implementation of the final proposals of  the Wage  Board  would  be Rs. 6.78 lakhs  which  would  clearly indicate that it has not the capacity to bear the burden  of the  Wage Board’s recommendation.  The Wage Board,  however, in  para 3.34 has given the reasons why it is, treating  the U.N.I.  differently  from the P.T.I. because that is  a  new concern hardly 8 years old and has still got to build up its business.   As far as the P.T.I. is concerned,  it  observed that  there is recurring burden of Rs. 7 lakhs,  and  having regard  to the average profit for 1963, 1964 and 1965  being Rs.  3.87 lakhs, the deficit on account of affairs would  be to the tune of Rs. 3.5 lakhs.  In spite of this recognition, the  Board  says that "it should not be  difficult  for  the P.T.I. to make up this deficiency by increasing the rate  of subscription and also by tightening up the Organization". It  is  this  classification of the  P.T.I.  that  has  been attacked  as being discriminatory and arbitrary and is  said to  be  without  any  basis.  In so far  as  the  U.N.I.  is concerned,  there  is no doubt that it falls under  Class  V but,  as  stated  already, there can be no  doubt  that  the service   rendered  by  the  P.T.I.  is  certainly   higher. Similarly,  newspapers and news agencies are in a  different class.   In these circumstances there can be no question  of any  discrimination among, unequals.  The classification  is based  on an intelligible differentia, namely, the  capacity of  each news agency to pay and between newspapers and  news agencies, on the nature of the service rendered, the sources of income and the manner in which that service is  rendered. The  criteria  for  classification  also  bears  a  rational relationship to the object to be achieved, namely, wages  to be  fixed.   The only question will be whether even  on  the criteria laid down by the Board, are its recommendations  in respect  of the P.T.I. arbitrary and do they single  it  out for discrimination?  It is Well established that even  where legislative  action  or any action taken is  under  any  law against  a single individual or thing or several  individual persons   or   things   where  no   reasonable   basis   for classification  may  appear in the face of it  or  deducible from the surrounding circumstances, that action is liable to be struck down 511 as an instance of discrimination : (see  Ameerunnissa  Begum and’  other  v.  Mahbood Begum and others;  (1)  Ram  Prasad Narayan  Sashi  and  another  v.  The  State  of  Bihar  and others;(i2)  Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice  S.  R. Tendolkar  &  others(8).   It  is  clear  that  taking  into

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 20  

consideration  the capacity or the gross revenue  which  has been  made the basis of classification, there is  sub-stance in  the  sub:  mission  of  the  learned  Advocate  for  the petitioners that the P.T.I. has been singled out without any reasonable basis.  It is  however, contended by the  learned Advocate  for the second respondent that the P.T.I. being  a consumer   co-operative,   i.e.,  where   the   shareholders themselves are the main consumers, there is no incentive  or scope for the agency to show any substantial profits and  in fact by keeping the subscription low, the payment of the low subscription  by these shareholders who are also  newspapers result in their getting back in due course the capital  they have invested.  In this connection the learned Advocate  has referred  us  to the award of Salim M.  Merchant,  Presiding Officer, National- Industrial Tribunal, in a dispute between the  P.T.I.  and their workmen published in the  Gazette  of India,  Part II, Section 3(11), at p. 3565.  In that  award, in  paragraph  62 a reference was made to  the  observations made  by  the Press Commission which in paragraph  419  had, observed:                "The  Press Trust of.India has in the  course               of its working incurred losses amounting to  a               substantial  proportion  of its  capital.   We               would like to emphasis in this connection that               the  losses we refer to are not really  losses               in   the  usual  sense  of  the   tern.    The               newspapers  themselves are  the  shareholders,               and  if  the agency has been  recovering  from               them, as subscriptions, less than what it cost               the    agency   to   provide   the    service,               the  shareholders  have had the  benefit  each               year  of  the amount that is now shown  as  an               accumulated  loss.  Each year, they have  paid               for  the  services less than  in  equity  they               should have, and thus got their money back  in               installments.   The loss, it any, is  only  to               these  shareholders (publishers  of  monthlies               and  periodicals)  who  did not  take  a  news               service  and  could not  therefore  get  their               capital back in this manner." After discussing the various aspects, the award of Salim  M. Merchant sets out the following conclusions in paragraph  62 as under:               "The   conclusion  to  be  drawn   from   this               discussion  is that I am more  than  satisfied               that  the P.T.I. has the capacity to meet  the               financial burden of the more favourable  terms               of employment for both its working journalists               and non-working journalists in respect of  the               various matters referred to in the schedule to               the  order  of reference which  I  propose  to               grant by this award, and that if necessary  it               can  easily  raise  the  requisite  funds   by               increasing its rates of subscriptions." The recommendations of Press Commission Report of 1954 which formed  the  basis of Salim Merchant’s, Award  of  1960  and which is (1)  [1953] S.C.R. 404. (2) [1953] S.C. R. 1129. (3)  [1959] S. C. R. 279 at 299. 19-423SCII75 512 now being pressed into service by the respondents to justify the  Wage  Board recommendations in placing  the  P.T.I.  in Class  II  instead of Class III have been described  by  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 20  

petitioners’ learned Advocate as fallacious and the approach of  the Wage Board as totally opposed to the  provisions  of the  Act.   It  is  submitted  that  the  Press  Commissions recommendations were based on certain premises which  ceased to  exist  since  they  have  not  been-  accepted  by   the Government or governmental agencies.  The recommendations of the  Press Commission, it is pointed out, were  a  composite recommendations as can be discerned from the following               "Our  recommendations  for  the  revision   of               tariffs  of  the  Press Trust  of  India,  the               transfer  of the responsibility  for  purchase               and maintenance of teleprinters to Government,               a concession in respect of reception  charges,               "and an increase in the subscriptions paid  by               All India Radio, should all be taken  together               along   with  our  recommendations   for   the               reconstitution of the Press Trust of India  as               a  public  Corporation managed by a  Board  of               Turstees." It  is therefore, pointed out that the recommendations  were to  be taken together and had not to. be singled out.   None of   these  recommendations  have  been  accepted  by   the. Government  except  the price-page schedule  in  respect  of which the Newspapers (Price & Page) Act, 1956, was  enacted. The  Act  was, however, struck down by this Court  in  Sakal Papers Private Ltd. and others v. Union of India(1).  The  P &  T Department refused to take over the teleprinters.   The All India Radio refused to increase the subscription to  the extent  recommended  by  the Press  Commission.   The  Press Commission  even  went  to the ,extent of  saying  that  the P.T.I.  should offer three categories of service,  Class  I, Class  II  and  the Summary Service.   The  Summary  Service ’should be taken by the newspapers not exceeding twenty-four pages per week of standard size and having less than  5,000. circulation;  those publishing a larger number of pages  but not  exceeding  thirty two pages per week  should  take  the Class II service, and others publishing more pages per  week should  take  the  Class I Service.  It  also  provides  for reduction of 25 per cent.  On the royalties to any newspaper that  subscribes also to a service from the United Press  of India  (see paragraph 392).  While so, in paragraph 413  the Press Commission observed that "a public corporation  forced otherwise than on ’the basis of a co-operative effect by the newspapers  may  be  open to the danger  of  newspapers  not taking a service from them.  The corporation has, therefore, to  be built up on the present foundations, whatever may  be the changes in its control and operation." In  view of this conclusion, it is submitted by the  learned Advocate  for  the  petitioners that  the  Press  Commission itself  has realised the futility of its recommendations  in jacking up subscriptions in that no legal compulsion can  be exercised in this behalf and has accordingly recommended the continuance   of  the  present  system  of   a   cooperative proprietary ownership by newspapers of the P.r.1. It is (1)  [1962] 3 S.C.R. 842. 513 the  case  of  the  petitioners  that  the  P.T.I  has  made consistent  efforts  during the past years to  increase  the subscriptions  and  that  out  of  the  total   subscription revenue,  only  roughly 30 per cent is  contributed  by  the shareholders,  i.e.  out of total number of  170  newspapers subscribers,   only  90  are  shareholders.   All  these   ’ shareholders are not first class newspapers.  Apart from the newspapers,  the All India Radio and  governmental  agencies and  commercial houses and embassies also subscribe  to  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 20  

news service of the P.T.I. and contribute in a large measure to its revenue.  The P.T.I. has no legal means available  to compel  any  increase.  It has found in the  past  that  the revenues  do not proportionately increase with  increase  in subscription,  because  the  newspapers  either  refuse’  to continue  subscriptions  or switch over to  lower  class  of service.   The Press Commission itself noticed in  paragraph 402 of its report that the representative of All India Radio candidly observed that it is better for them to start a news service of their own rather than pay a higher subscription. It  does  not  appear  to what extent  the  Wage  Board  has considered  the  relevant  materials  either  of  the  Press Commission,  Salim  Merchant’s Award  or  the  circumstances adverted  to  by the learned advocate  for  the  petitioners in,the light of any representations made, to them.   Whether the financial potentiality of the P.T.I. was, considered  as the  basis for including it in Class II category instead  of in Class III category, contrary, to the criteria  prescribed by  the  Wage  Boad itself, is also  not  evident  from  the recommendations  of the Board.  All that is  discernible  is that  because the P.T.I. has the status of a  national  news agency which enters even for top class papers, it should  be placed in Class II category.  How the position of the P.T.I. as a national news agency has any relevance to the  criteria relatable  to its gross revenue has not been specified,  nor are we able to as certain as to how the catering to the  top class papers would increase its gross revenue.  On the other hand, the P.T.I. has been placed in the category of Class II instead  of  Class III to which it admittedly  belongs,  and that it was required to continue to be in that class as long as  it satisfies the criteria for Class 111’ namely so  long as  its gross revenue is less than Rs. 100 lakhs.   This  in our  view,  is  arbitrary and singles  out  the  P.T.I.  for discrimination.   The two dissenting members of  the  Board, Mr. K. K. Mathew and Mr. K. Nattakalappa indeed adverted  to this aspect when they said:               "We cannot agree with the recommendations that               P.T.I.’s position should be raised and  placed               in class II even though, as per its revenue it               should  really fall in class III.   We  cannot               agree  with the recommendation as it  involves               certain    fundamental    points    and     is               discriminatory.      Having     decided     on               classification of news agency on the basis  of               revenues, the majority of Wage Board chose  to               elevate P.T.T. by one class without any  sound               argument.   In our opinion such a decision  to               elevate  P.T.I, is not correct and is  utterly               irrational and discriminatory." Certain statements of profits and loss for the years 1962 to 1972  have been placed before us to show that  though  there was a heavy 514 increase  of subscription in the years 1966, 1968 and  1971, it  did not produce commensurate ’profits.  In  1966,  there was a loss of Rs. 291-00; in 1968 Rs. 3,19,449-00 and in the year  1971 there was a meagre profit of Rs. 1,86,597-00  and this  in spite of the enormous rent revenue received by  the P.T.I.  from its own building.  This apart, a statement  has been  filed to show that the increase in the burden  of  the Wage Board recommendations would increase from 6.69 in  1966 to  12.29 lakhs in 1968 and 16.78 lakhs in 1969 which  is  a burden  far  in excess of its capacity each  year.   On  the other  hand, on behalf of the second respondent  figures  of subscription  were  sought to be placed before  us  for  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 20  

years  1971,  1972  and 1973 to meet  the  argument  that  a substantial  portion of the revenue of the P.T.T. came  from the  All India Radio, Government agencies and embassies  and commercial services though no facts and figures were  given. As  is  clear,  most of the data, whether  produced  by  the petitioners  or  by  the  second  respondent  has  not  been accepted  by one or the other.  Each one of the parties  has drawn  its  own  conclusions  from that  data  and  has  not accepted  even  the  figures.   In  our  view,  yield   from subscription  for  the  years 1971, 1972 and  1973  are  not relevant  for  fixation  of the wages in  1967.   These  may justify a wage revision by another Board. It  was  urged  by  the  learned  Advocate  for  the  second respondent that     the burden of, Rs, ’7.78 lakhs per annum referred to in para 3.33 of Wage Board’s recommendations  is not really such a heavy burden as is sought to be made  out. In fact the amount shown in the above referred paragraph  is the  estimated annual burden on the basis of  implementation of  the recommendations of the Wage Board for  both  working journalists  and non-working journalists.  In so far as  the working  journalists are concerned, the burden as  from  1st July 1967 at the rate of Rs. 29,000/- per month will  amount to only Rs. 3.48 lakhs which is less than the average profit of  Rs.  3.67  lakhs.   The  financial  burden,   therefore, according to the learned Advocate for the second respondent, is not heavy.  He further contends that the wage bill has to come  out of the revenues and net profits arise  only  after deductions are made from the gross revenue of any particular year.   Accordingly, the argument that the  increased,  wage burden has to come out of the net profit has been  described as wholly without basis and unsound in law. In  our  view, whether the burden of Rs. 6.78  lakhs  is  in respect of the working journalists or in respect of both the working  and nonworking journalists, it is  nonetheless  the burden  which  the  P.T.I. has to?  bear.   In  judging  the financial  capacity of the employer we have to look  at  the burden  as a whole and that is what the Wage Board has  done when  it  recognised  that the burden is a  heavy  one.   It cannot be said that the establishment should pay the working journalists first the recommended wages and utilize whatever balance  remains for payment to the  nonworking  journalists irrespective   of  whether  they  can  be  paid   the   wage recommended  or not.  This is not what is envisaged  in  the term  capacity.  to pay.  No doubt the wage  increases  will have  to  be met from the revenue and  only  thereafter  the profits can be computed.  Me-rely because the Wage Board 515 has  stated that the average burden for three years  is  Rs. 6.78  lakhs  and  the recurring deficit ’is  about  Rs,  3.5 lakhs, that cannot be said that it has deducted the  average profits  of  Rs.  3.67  lakhs  from  the  annual   recurring financial  burden  of Rs. 6.78 lakhs, In fact I if  this  is what it has done, the financial burden will be only Rs. 3.11 lakhs  and not Rs. 3.5 lakhs.  We, therefore,  presume  that the  Wage  Board  Were aware of the  method  of  computation suggested by the learned Advocate for the second  respondent when  they  gave RS. 6.78 lakhs as the  recurring  financial burden which would have to IN borne by the P.T.I. on account of  the  implementation of their final  proposals.   At  any rate,  we  cannot  say  that it  has  not  done  so.   While recognizing  that  the  burden was  heavy,  the  Wage  Board assumed  without  any  discussion  that  the  P.T.I.   could increase its subscription and tighten its Organization.  But assumptions are not enough.  What the Act says is, ascertain the  financial capacity and fix the wage according  to  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 20  

capacity. The  observations in the Express Newspapers case (supra)  at p.  192  are apt in their application to  this  case.   This Court in that case said, ". . . all the members of the Board seem to have lost sight of the fact that the essential  pre- requisite of deciding the wage structure was to consider the capacity  of  the industry to pay and this  in  our  opinion introduces  fatal infirmity in that decision of the  Board." No doubt, in that case it was observed that if the Board had considered  this  aspect they would have been  reluctant  to accept any challenge to the validity of the decision on  the ground  that their capacity’ to ’pay had not  been  properly considered.   That was, however, a case where the  essential conditions  for  fixation  of wage  structure,  namely,  the capacity to, pay had been completely ignored.  But if it had not been, would this Court have, held the recommendation  to be  valid, even where on the very face of it it came to  the conclusion ,that the wage structure would, having regard  to the average income of three years, impose a heavy  financial burden.  We do not understand the observations to which  our attention has been drawn as supporting the proposition  that as  soon  as it is apparent that the Board in  some  way  or other  has  touched  upon the matter  no  challenge  can  be entertained. Apart  from  this,  there  is one  other  infirmity  in  the impugned order which has accepted the recommendations of the Wage  Board  and that is in prescribing a wage  higher  than that asked for by the employees of the P.T.I. The  employers (the P.T.I.) could only meet the claim of the employees. but could  not  meet the recommendation for a higher  wage  than asked  for.  The Wage Board has thus not complied  with  the principles  of natural justice which have been  incorporated in  s.10 of the Act.  The provisions of this section are  as under :               "   10.  (1).   The  Board  shall  by   notice               published  in  such manner as it  thinks  fit,               call upon newspaper establishment and  working               journalists  and other persons  interested  in               the fixation or revision of rates of wages  of               working     journalists    to    make     such               representations  as  they  may  think  fit  as               regards the rates of wages which may be  fixed               or  revised  under  this  Act  in  respect  of               working journalists.                516               "(2)  Every  such representation shall  be  in               writing  and shall be made within such  period               as  the  Board may specify in the  notice  and               shall  state the rates of wages which, in  the               opinion    of    the   person    making    the               representation,  would be  reasonable,  having               regard to the capacity of the employer to  pay               the   same  or  to  any  other   circumstance,               whichever  may  seem relevant  to  the  person               making  the representation in relation to  his               representation.                 (3)  The Board shall take into  account  the               representations  aforesaid, if any, and  after               the  materials  placed  before  it  make  such               recommendations  as  it  thinks  fit  to   the               Central   Government  for  the   fixation   or               revision  of  rates  of wages  in  respect  of               working    journalists;    and    any     such               recommendation     may    specify,     whether               prospectively  or  retrospectively,  the  date

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 20  

             from  which  the rates of  wages  should  take               effect." Sub-section  (3) enjoins on the Board to take  into  account the  representations  of those mentioned in sub-s.  (1)  and after considering the materials, to make recommendations  to the Central Government for the fixation or revision of rates of  wages.  Sub-section (2) requires the Board to  take  the capacity of the employer to pay ’into consideration.   When. as we have noticed, the recurring financial capacity of  the P.T.I. is itself according to the Wage Board not  sufficient to bear the burden placed by it, the recommendations of, the Wage Board of a wage higher than what has been asked for  by the  employees  without notice to the employers,  shows  how unreasonable and arbitrary the recommendations of the  Board are. The Federation-of the P.T.T. employees union in its reply to Part I and II of the questionnaire issued by the Wake  Board suggested  the  following scales of pay for Class  ’A’  news agency  having a gross revenue of Rs. 50 lakhs and  over  as against which is given the recommendation of the Wage Board: ------------------------------------------------------------ Federation’s scale or pay for    Wage Board’s proposed scale working journalists.             of pay for the P.T.I. ------------------------------------------------------------                        Group I- Net less than Rs. 1600/-p.m.                        Group I-A-Rs. 800-75-1100-125-1600                         (8 years)                       Group I-B-Rs. 750-78-1140-120-1500                       (8 years) Group If- Rs. 650-50-1000-   Group II Rs. 650-40-850-17-1200 75-1600  (15 year)           100-1400 (12 year) Group IIA-RS. 550-50-1000-    Group IIA-Rs. 375-34-345-55- 60-1300 (14 years)            1095-85-1350 (18 year) Group IIB- Rs. 400-30-610-40- 810-50-900(14 years) Group III-Rs. 250-25-450-30-    GroupIII-  Rs. 375-30-525- 600-40-800(18 years)            45-975-1200 (18 years) ------------------------------------------------------------ It   is   apparent  from  the  above  table  that   in   the recommendations  for each of the groups, the Wage Board  has proposed a higher scale than 517 what  has  been asked for by the Federation  of  the  P.T.I. Employees Union.  The P.T.I. points out that the Wage  Board has  gone  beyond  the scales suggested  by  the  Federation which, as an employees organization, will always demand  the maximum.  Not only the Wage Board has raised the minimum and maximum over the Federation’s demand, but also increased the quantum of annual increment and enlarged the  classification of  the  working journalists.  Similarly,  for  Group  11-A, corresponding to Group II-B of the Federation, the Board has recommended  the  maximum of Rs. 1350/-  starting  from  Rs. 375/-  as  against  the Federation’s  demand  of  Rs.  900/- starting  from Rs. 400/-, a difference of Rs. 450/-  in  the maximum.  For Group II, corresponding to group II-A of  the- Federation,  the  Wage Board’s proposal is  Rs.  65O/to  Rs. 1400/-as against the Federation’s of Rs. 5501- to Rs. 1300/- and  for Group I-B, corresponding to the Federation’s  Group II, the Board’s proposal is Rs. 750/- to Rs. 15001-  against the  Federation’s of Rs. 650/- to Rs. 1600/-.   The  learned Advocate for the second respondent challenges the submission that  the proposal of scales of pay is higher than what  was asked for.  It is pointed out that the wage fixation by  the Central Government under s. 12 of the Act is not based  upon the dispute or demand, and if the wages are fixed  according

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 20  

to  what  has been asked for by the Union, a  principle,  if accepted,  would make the scheme of wage fixation under  the Act either wholly impossible or unworkable.  Even  factually it  is  denied that the Employees Federation had  wanted  to confine  themselves  to  the  payscates  specified  in   the questionnaire.    No   doubt,  they  did  state   in   their supplementary memorandum that having regard to the status of the  the  total  emoluments for various  categories  may  be awarded  for the highest class of newspapers, together  with the provision for progressively increasing their  emoluments in  line with the rise in gross revenue above Rs.  50  lakhs both  in the case of Class ’A’ newspaper and Class ’A’  news agency.   While  this  was a general  statement  asking  for higher  wages, the wages asked for by the employees of  this premier  news agency which was the only one of its kind  was one shown in the statement given earlier.  As we have  seen, s.  10 confers a right of representation on  both  employers and  employees  and has prescribed a procedure  for  calling upon  the newspapers establishments and working  journalists and other persons interested in the fixation or revision  of wages  for working journalists to make  representations  and thereafter  it  is  incumbent upon the Board  to  take  into account  these  representations  and  examine  the  material placed  before it in the light of those representations  for making  its  recommendations.   Any  infringement  of   this procedural safeguard would affect its recommendations. A  law providing reasonable restrictions in the exercise  of the  right  conferred  by Art. 19  may  contain  substantive provisions   as   well  as   procedural   provisions.    The reasonableness  of the restriction whether substantively  or procedurally has to be judged from the point of view of  the right that has been in fact restricted.  In Dr. N. B.  Khare v. The State of Delhi, Kania; C.J., at p.524 said; "The, law providing  reasonable  restrictions of the exercise  of  the right  conferred  by  Article  19  may  contain  substantive provisions as well as procedural provisions.  While (1)  [1950] S. C. R. 521. 518 the reasonableness of the restrictions has to be  considered with  regard  to  the exercise "of the right,  it  does  not necessarily exclude from the consideration of the Court  the question  of  reasonableness of the procedural part  of  the law.   It is obvious that, if the law prescribes five  years externment or ten years exterment, the question whether such period  of externment is reasonable, being  the  substantive part,  is  necessarily for the consideration  of  the  Court under  clause  (5).   Similarly, if  the  law  provides  the procedure  under  which  the exercise of the  right  may  be restricted,  the same is also for the consideration  of  the Court,  as it has to determine if the exercise of the  right has  been  reasonably  restricted I do  not  think  by  this interpretation  the scope and ambit of  word"’reasonable"’as applied to restrictions on the exercise of the right, is  in any way unjustifiably enlarged." In  our view, the recommendations of the Wage Board,  in  so far as the P.T.I. is concerned, are unreasonable.  They  are far in excess of what the employees themselves demanded  and arc beyond the financial capacity of the establishment.  The order, in so far as ,the P.T.I. is concerned, is, therefore, violative  of  the  fundamental  rights  guaranteed  to  the petitioner  and  must  be  struck  down.   It  is,  however, submitted on behalf of the P. T. I. that it has entered into an   agreement  with  its  employees  represented   by   the Federation of the P.T.I. Employees Union which gives them  a wage higher than was recommended for Class III and  somewhat

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 20  

less than that recommended for Class II. In accordance  with that  agreement,  the  working journalists  are  being  paid during  the  pendency  of those proceedings.   It  has  been stated before us that the P.T.I. is prepared to pay all  its employees  the wages agreed to by the very Federation  which had made representation before the Wage Board from the  date directed  by the order and will continue to do so  till  the wages are refixed by another Wage Board. In the case of the Indian National Press the only  objection urged  was that there is a deficit of Rs.  50,000/-  between the  average net profits and the yearly burden.  We  do  not think  any case has. been made out that this petitioner  has not  the  capacity to meet the wage  increase,  particularly when it has been placed in the appropriate class in which is should  be placed, having regard to its gross  profits.   No other objection was raised and accordingly Writ Petition No. 37 of 1968 is dismissed. NO  orders in Civil Appeal No. 2102 of 1968,  Writ  Petition No.  40  of  1968  is allowed,  the  order  of  the  Central Government in S.O. 3883 dated October 27, 1967, in so far as the  petitioner P.T.I. is concerned, is struck down, and  it is  directed that the petitioner will pay the wages,  agreed to between the petitioner, the P.T.I., and the Federation of the  P.T.I.  Employees  Union  as from  the  date  when  the recommendations  of  the Wage Board were  payable  and  will continue  to pay them accordingly till they are  refixed  by the  Central  Government on the recommendations  of  another Wage  Board constituted under that A There will be no  order as to costs. V. P. S. 423SCI/75-GIPF. 519