9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955. 2. Validity of the Wage Board's decision. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Constitutionality of the Act 1. Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19(1)(a)): - Argument: The Act imposes restrictions on the freedom of the press by regulating employment terms for working journalists, potentially affecting the circulation and editorial independence. - Court's Analysis: Freedom of speech includes freedom of the press, but the Act's primary aim is to regulate employment conditions, not to curb press freedom. The Act's measures are not intended to restrict the dissemination of information or editorial independence. - Conclusion: The Act does not violate Article 19(1)(a). 2. Right to Carry on Business (Article 19(1)(g)): - Argument: The Act imposes unreasonable restrictions on the business of newspaper establishments by fixing wages and other employment conditions without considering the industry's capacity to pay. - Court's Analysis: The Act's provisions are intended to improve the conditions of working journalists. The Wage Board must consider the industry's capacity to pay, but the Act itself is not unreasonable. However, Section 5(1)(a)(iii) (gratuity upon voluntary resignation) is deemed unreasonable. - Conclusion: Section 5(1)(a)(iii) is unconstitutional, but the rest of the Act does not violate Article 19(1)(g). 3. Equality Before Law (Article 14): - Argument: The Act discriminates by providing special treatment to working journalists and not other employees, and by creating a special Wage Board for journalists. - Court's Analysis: Working journalists form a distinct class due to the nature of their work, justifying special treatment. The classification is based on intelligible differentia and has a rational nexus to the objective of improving journalists' working conditions. - Conclusion: The Act does not violate Article 14. 4. Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32): - Argument: The Act does not require the Wage Board to provide reasons for its decisions, making it difficult to challenge the decisions in court. - Court's Analysis: The Act does not prohibit the Wage Board from giving reasons. The absence of a mandate to provide reasons does not infringe upon the right to constitutional remedies. - Conclusion: The Act does not violate Article 32. Issue 2: Validity of the Wage Board's Decision 1. Re-constitution of the Board: - Argument: The re-constitution of the Board was unauthorized as the rules were published after the re-constitution. - Court's Analysis: The Central Government had the authority to reconstitute the Board under the General Clauses Act. The Board was properly constituted when it functioned. - Conclusion: The re-constitution was valid. 2. Majority Decision: - Argument: The decision by a majority was unwarranted by the Act. - Court's Analysis: The rules allowed for decisions by majority votes, which were within the Central Government's rule-making authority. - Conclusion: The majority decision was valid. 3. Procedure and Natural Justice: - Argument: The Board did not follow the principles of natural justice. - Court's Analysis: The Board assumed the powers of an Industrial Tribunal, which includes following procedures that conform to natural justice. - Conclusion: The Board's procedure was valid. 4. Lack of Reasons: - Argument: The decision was invalid as no reasons were given. - Court's Analysis: While not mandatory, it would have been prudent to provide reasons. The chairman's note provided sufficient indication of the considerations. - Conclusion: The lack of detailed reasons does not invalidate the decision. 5. Classification Based on Gross Revenue: - Argument: Classification on the basis of gross revenue was unauthorized. - Court's Analysis: The classification was rational and within the Board's discretion. - Conclusion: The classification was valid. 6. Grouping into Chains or Multiple Units: - Argument: Grouping was unauthorized. - Court's Analysis: The Act did not prohibit such grouping, and it was within the Board's discretion. - Conclusion: The grouping was valid. 7. Fixation of Salaries on an All-India Basis: - Argument: The Board was not authorized to fix salaries on an all-India basis. - Court's Analysis: The Act allowed for such a broad approach. - Conclusion: The fixation was valid. 8. Capacity to Pay: - Argument: The Board did not consider the capacity to pay. - Court's Analysis: The capacity to pay is an essential consideration, and the Board failed to adequately consider it. - Conclusion: The decision is invalid due to the lack of consideration of the capacity to pay. 9. Retrospective Operation: - Argument: The Board had no authority to render a retrospective decision. - Court's Analysis: The Board had the authority to make retrospective decisions. - Conclusion: The retrospective operation was valid. 10. Fixation of Scales of Pay for a Period: - Argument: The Board had no authority to fix scales of pay for a period of 3 years. - Court's Analysis: The Board did not fix a period; it only suggested a review after 3 years. - Conclusion: This ground is not applicable. 11. Handicapped for Want of Cost of Living Index: - Argument: The Board was handicapped for want of a cost of living index. - Court's Analysis: The Board used available cost of living indices. - Conclusion: The Board was not handicapped. Summary: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, except for Section 5(1)(a)(iii) regarding gratuity upon voluntary resignation. The decision of the Wage Board was invalidated due to the failure to consider the capacity of the industry to pay, an essential criterion for fixing wages. The petitions were allowed, and the decision of the Wage Board was declared illegal and void.
|
