http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: SAMARJIT GHOSH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BENNETT COLEMAN & COMPANY AND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT29/06/1987

BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. (CJ) BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. (CJ) KHALID, V. (J)

CITATION:  1987 AIR 1869            1987 SCR  (3) 475  1987 SCC  (3) 507        JT 1987 (3)    19  1987 SCALE  (2)5

ACT:     Labour   Law: Working Journalists  and  Other  Newspaper Employees’ (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous  Provi- sions  Act. 1955: Sub-ss. (1) and (2) of s. 17 read with  r. 36  of the Rules framed thereunder--Dispute with  regard  to unpaid  dues  between an employee and  his  employer-company which has offices at places falling in different States--The State Government competent to make a reference to the Labour Court under sub-s. (2) of s. 17.

HEADNOTE:     The appellant, a working journalist who was appointed on November,  1961  as a Staff Correspondent  in  the  Calcutta Office  of the respondent-company while working as  such  at Calcutta,  applied  on 29 April, 1975 to the  Government  of West Bengal under sub-s.  (1) of s. 17 of the Working  Jour- nalists and Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service)  and Miscellaneous  Provisions  Act,  1955 for  recovery  of  the unpaid  portion  of his wages relating to the  period  April 1968  to February 1973. While the  conciliation  proceedings were  on,  he  was promoted and transferred to  Pune  on  16 February, 1976. The Conciliation Officer reported the  fail- ure  of the proceedings before him on 16 November, 1976  and the Government of West Bengal made a reference under  sub-s. (2)  of  s. 17 of the Act to the First  Labour  Court,  West Bengal  on 23 August, 1977 for the adjudication of the  dis- pute  between the parties. The preliminary objection  raised by the respondent-company that the Government of West Bengal was not competent to make the reference was rejected by  the Labour  Court. The respondent-company’s writ petition  chal- lenging  ’the  order of the Labour Court was  allowed  by  a Single  Judge whose decision was affirmed in appeal  by  the Division Bench of the High Court.     Allowing the appeal by special leave and dismissing  the writ petition of the respondent-company, this Court.     HELD: (i) Sub-s. (1) ors. 17 of the Act requires that an application  by the newspaper-employee complaining  that  an amount due to him has remained unpaid by the employer should be made to the State Government. Which is the State  Govern- ment to which such application lies is 476

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

indicated by r: 36 of the Rules made under the Act and  that rule  provides  that an application under s. 17 of  the  Act shall  be  made  to the Government of the  State  where  the central office or the branch office of the newspaper  estab- lishment  in  which the newspaper employee  is  employed  is situated.  It is the location of the central office  or  the branch  office in which the newspaper employee  is  employed which determines which State Government it will be. The rule works in favour of the convenience of the newspaper  employ- ee. [478C-E]     (ii)  Sub-s. (2) of s. 17 provides that if any  question arises  as  to the amount due under the Act to  a  newspaper employee  from his employer, the State Government may  refer the  question to any Labour Court, constituted by  it  under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law  relating to investigation and settlement of  industrial disputes  in force in the State. If a question arises as  to the amount due, it is a question which arises on the  appli- cation  made by the newspaper employee, and the  application having been made before the appropriate State Government, it is that State Government which will call for an adjudication of the dispute by referring the question to a Labour  Court. The State Government before whom the application for  recov- ery  is made is the. State Government which will  refer  the question  as to the amount due to a Labour  Court.  [478F-G; 479C-D]     In this case, the appellant was employed at the Calcutta branch of the respondent-company. He made the application to the  Labour Department of the Government of West Bengal  for recovery of the unpaid portion of his wages. When the  ques- tion  arose as to the amount due to the appellant, the  Gov- ernment  of West Bengal made the reference for  adjudication to  the First Labour Court, West Bengal. Upon the  construc- tion  of sub-s. (2) of s. 17 as indicated at (ii) above,  it is  beyond  dispute that the Government of  West  Bengal  is competent  to  make the reference. The High Court  erred  in holding that the reference was without jurisdiction and that it was the State of Maharashtra which was competent to  make the reference. [479E-G]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2794  of 1986.     From  the  Judgment  and Order dated  18.1.1985  of  the Calcutta High Court in E.M.A.T. No. 19 of 1983. Appellant in person.     G.B. Pai, P.R. Seetharaman and Ms. Deepa Chhabra for the Respondents.  477 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     PATHAK, CJ. This appeal is directed against the judgment and  order  of a Division Bench of the Calcutta  High  Court affirming  on  appeal the judgment and order  of  a  learned Single Judge of the High Court declaring that the  reference made by the Government of West Bengal in the dispute  raised by the appellant is incompetent and invalid.     The  appellant is a working journalist employed  by  the respondents,  Messrs. Bennett Coleman and  Company  Limited. The  registered office of the company is at Bombay  and  its press is located in Calcutta. The sales office of the compa- ny  is situated in Calcutta. On 1 November, 1961 the  appel- lant  was  appointed a staff correspondent in  the  Calcutta office  of  the company. The letter of appointment  dated  9

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

November, 1961 was issued by the company from its registered office  at Bombay. Subsequently, the appellant was  promoted to the post of Industrial Correspondent, Pune and was trans- ferred  from Calcutta to Pune from 16 February,  1976.  Upon transfer to Pune the appellant received his remuneration and allowances  from the Pune office of the company, and he  was under  the direct control and supervision of the  registered office of the company situated in Bombay.     While  the  appellant  was in Calcutta  and  before  his transfer  on promotion to Pune the appellant applied to  the Labour  Department, Government of West Bengal on  29  April, 1975  under sub-s. (1) of s. 17 of the  Working  Journalists and  Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of  Service)  and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred  to as  "the  Act") for recovery of the unpaid  portion  of  his wages  relating to the period April, 1968 to February,  1973 from the employer company. On 14 May, 1975 the Government of West Bengal initiated conciliation proceedings. The employer company  participated in the conciliation proceedings and  a joint conciliation meeting was held before the  Conciliation Officer,  Calcutta.  The appellant was transferred  to  Pune while  the report of the conciliation proceedings was  still awaited.  On  16  November, 1976  the  Conciliation  Officer reported failure of the conciliation proceedings and  recom- mended  that  the dispute be referred to  the  Labour  Court under  sub  s.  (2) of s. 17 of the  Act.  Accordingly,  the Government  of  West Bengal made a reference on  23  August, 1977 to the First Labour Court, West Bengal for the  adjudi- cation of the dispute between the parties. An objection  was raised by the employer company before the First Labour Court that the reference was incompetent as the Government of West Bengal had 478 no  power to make the reference. On 11 July, 1980 the  First Labour  Court  rejected the objection. The order  was  chal- lenged  by the employer company by a writ petition filed  in the  High Court. By his judgment and order dated  5  August, 1982,  the learned Single Judge held that the reference  was incompetent.  That view was affirmed by a Division Bench  of the  High  Court in appeal. And now this appeal  by  special leave.     The  question whether the Government of West Bengal  was empowered  to  make a reference of the dispute  between  the appellant and the employer company must be determined by the provisions  of the Act in their application to the facts  of this  case.  Section 17 of the Act makes provision  for  the recovery  of  money  due to a newspaper  employee  from  his employer.  Sub-s.  (1) requires that an application  by  the newspaper employee complaining that an amount due to him has remained unpaid by the employer should be made to the  State Government,  and  provides that if the State  Government  is satisfied that any amount is so due it is empowered to issue a  certificate for that amount to the Collector, and  there- upon  the Collector must proceed to recover that  amount  in the  same manner as an arrear of land revenue. Which is  the State Government to which such application lies is indicated by Rule 36 of the Rules made under the Act. Rule 36 provides that an application under s. 17 of the Act shall be made  to the Government of the State where the Central Office or  the Branch  Office of the newspaper establishment in  which  the newspaper employee is employed is situated. It is the  loca- tion of the Central Office or the Branch Office in which the newspaper employee is employed which determines which  State Government  it  will  be. The Rule works in  favour  of  the convenience of the newspaper employees.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

             Sub-sections (2) and (3) of s. 17 provide:               "(2)  If any question arises as to the  amount               due  under  this Act to a  newspaper  employee               from  his employer, the State Government  may,               on its own motion or upon application made  to               it,  refer  the question to any  Labour  Court               constituted   by  it  under   the   Industrial               Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) or under               any    corresponding    law    relating     to               investigation  and  settlement  of  industrial               disputes  in force in the State and  the  said               Act  or law shall have effect in  relation  to               the  Labour  Court  as  if  the  question   so               referred were a matter referred to the  Labour               Court for adjudication under that Act or law.                    479               (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall  be               forwarded by it to the State Government  which               made the reference and any amount found due by               the  Labour  Court  may be  recovered  in  the               manner provided in sub-section (1)."     When all the provisions of s. 17 are considered together it  is  apparent that they constitute a  single  scheme.  In simple  terms the scheme is this. A newspaper employee,  who claims  that an amount due to him has not been paid  by  his employer, can apply to the State Government for recovery  of the  amount. If no dispute arises as to the amount  due  the Collector will recover the amount from the employer and  pay it  over to the newspaper employee. If a question arises  as to  the  amount due, it is a question which  arises  on  the application made by the newspaper employee, and the applica- tion  having been made before the appropriate State  Govern- ment  it  is that State Government which will  call  for  an adjudication  of the dispute by referring the question to  a Labour  Court. When the Labour Court has decided  the  ques- tion,  it will forward its decision to the State  Government which  made the reference, and thereafter the State  Govern- ment  will direct that recovery proceedings shall be  taken. In other words the State Government before whom the applica- tion for recovery is made is the State Government which will refer  the question as to the amount due to a Labour  Court, and the Labour Court upon reaching its decision will forward the decision to the State Government, which will then direct recovery of the amount.     Turning  to the facts of the present case, it  is  clear that  the application under sub-s. (1) of s. 17 was made  on 29  April, 1975 when the appellant was employed at the  Cal- cutta  Branch of the employer company. He made the  applica- tion  to  the Labour Department of the  Government  of  West Bengal for recovery of the unpaid portion of his wages. When the  question arose as to the amount due to  the  appellant, the Government of West Bengal made the reference for adjudi- cation  to  the First Labour Court, West  Bengal.  Upon  the construction  of sub-s. (2) of s. 17 which has found  favour with us, it is beyond dispute, we think, that the Government of  West Bengal is competent to make the reference.  In  our opinion  the High Court erred in holding that the  reference was without jurisdiction and that it was the State of  Maha- rashtra  which  was  competent to make  the  reference.  The application  for recovery was rightly made by the  appellant before  the  Government of West Bengal because he  was  then employed  by  the  Branch Office of  the  employer  company, Calcutta. Once we hold that the application was rightly made before the Government of West 480

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

Bengal, the further conclusion must necessarily follow  that it  was  the Government of West Bengal which  possessed  the power to refer the question for adjudication. It seems to us that  the High Court omitted to appreciate  the  inter-rela- tionship  between the different provisions of s. 17 and  the fact  that if the proceeding under sub-s. (1) of s.  17  was commenced  rightly  before a State Government  it  was  that State  Government alone which should make a reference  to  a Labour Court for adjudication.     A number of cases have been placed before us, but we  do not consider it necessary to refer to them having regard  to the view taken by us upon a plain analysis o.f the statutory provisions.     We  may note that the fundamental question before us  is whether the Government of West Bengal was competent to  make the  reference. We do not consider it appropriate to  decide any  other  questions arising upon the reference  since  the reference must, pursuant to this judgment, be considered  to be  pending still and those questions can be  raised  there. Our  attention  has been drawn by learned  counsel  for  the employer  company  to an award of the Labour Court  of  West Bengal  where, it is said, the question covered by  the  im- pugned  reference has already been concluded on its  merits. That  is a submission which is open to the employer  company during  the  proceedings before the Labour  Court  upon  the impugned  reference. We are concerned with a  limited  point and we need go no further. In the result the appeal is allowed, the judgment and  order dated  18  January, 1985 of the Division Bench of  the  High Court  and the judgment and order dated 5 October,  1982  of the learned Single Judge of the High Court are set aside and the  writ  petition filed by the employer  company  is  dis- missed. The Labour Court will now proceed to dispose of  the reference  expeditiously. The appellant is entitled  to  his costs  of this appeal and of the entire  proceedings  before the High Court. P.S.S.                                                Appeal allowed. 481