2017 (6) TMI 1397 - SC - Indian Laws

Determination of wages of working journalists as well as non-journalist employees was erroneous and faulty requiring interference of the Court or not - constitution of the Wage Boards was contrary to the statutory provisions contained in the Act or not - HELD THAT - There is nothing either in the provisions of the Act or in the terms of the Wage Board Award which would enable to hold that the benefits of the Award would be restricted to the regular employees and not contractual employees. In this regard the definition of newspaper employees , Working Journalist and Non-Journalist newspaper employees as defined in Section 2(c), 2(f) and 2(dd) of the Act noted. Insofar as variable pay is concerned, as already noticed and extracted in paragraph 7 above, this Court while dealing with the concept of variable pay has taken the view that the said relief has been incorporated in the Majithia Wage Board Award in order to give fair and equitable treatment to employees of newspapers. Therefore, no question of withholding the said benefit by taking any other view with regard to variable pay can arise. In fact, a reading of the relevant part of the Award would go to show that the concept of variable pay which was introduced in the Award stems from grade pay contained in the Report of the 6th Pay Commission and was intended to bring the working journalist and non-journalist employees covered by the Act at par with the Central Government employees to the extent possible. Having clarified all doubts and ambiguities in the matter and upon holding that none of the newspaper establishments should, in the facts of the cases here, be held guilty of commission of contempt, it is directed that henceforth all complaints with regard to non-implementation of the Majithia Wage Board Award or otherwise be dealt with in terms of the mechanism provided Under Section 17 of the Act. It would be more appropriate to resolve such complaints and grievances by resort to the enforcement and remedial machinery provided under the Act rather than by any future approaches to the Courts in exercise of the contempt jurisdiction of the Courts or otherwise. All the contempt petitions as well as the writ petitions filed Under Article 32 of the Constitution shall stand answered and disposed of.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Implementation of Majithia Wage Board Award.
2. Applicability to contractual employees.
3. Inclusion of variable pay.
4. Financial constraints and heavy cash losses.
5. Alleged wrongful termination and transfer of employees.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Implementation of Majithia Wage Board Award:

The Majithia Wage Board was constituted to revise wages for working journalists and non-journalist employees. The recommendations were accepted by the Central Government and notified on 11.11.2011. The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 07.02.2014, held that the Wage Board's recommendations were valid and should be implemented. The Court stated, "The recommendations of the Wage Boards are valid in law, based on genuine and acceptable considerations and there is no valid ground for interference Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India." The judgment mandated that revised wages be paid from 11.11.2011 and arrears up to March 2014 be paid in four equal installments within a year.

2. Applicability to Contractual Employees:

The contempt petitions raised the issue of whether the Majithia Wage Board Award applied to contractual employees. The Court clarified that the benefits of the Award are not restricted to regular employees but also extend to contractual employees. The Court noted, "There is nothing either in the provisions of the Act or in the terms of the Wage Board Award which would enable us to hold that the benefits of the Award would be restricted to the regular employees and not contractual employees."

3. Inclusion of Variable Pay:

The inclusion of variable pay in the calculation of other allowances was another point of contention. The Court reiterated that the concept of variable pay was introduced to ensure equitable treatment for newspaper employees, akin to Central Government employees. The Court stated, "No question of withholding the said benefit by taking any other view with regard to 'variable pay' can arise."

4. Financial Constraints and Heavy Cash Losses:

Several newspaper establishments cited financial constraints as a reason for non-implementation or partial implementation of the Award. The Court distinguished between financial difficulties and "heavy cash losses," noting that the latter must be consistent and crippling over the stipulated period. The Court emphasized, "This is a question of fact that has to be determined from case to case."

5. Alleged Wrongful Termination and Transfer of Employees:

Three writ petitions alleged arbitrary transfer and termination of employees who demanded the implementation of the Majithia Wage Board Award. The Court held that such issues should be resolved through the appropriate legal mechanisms under the Act or other relevant laws, such as the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court stated, "Adjudication of such question in the exercise of high prerogative writ jurisdiction of this Court Under Article 32 of the Constitution would not only be unjustified but such questions should be left for determination before the appropriate authority."

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court directed that all future complaints regarding the non-implementation of the Majithia Wage Board Award be addressed through the mechanisms provided under Section 17 of the Act. The Court clarified that the Award must be implemented in full, including for contractual employees and incorporating variable pay. The Court concluded that the newspaper establishments' non-compliance stemmed from a misunderstanding of the Award, and thus, they were not held in contempt. The Court stated, "Henceforth all complaints with regard to non-implementation of the Majithia Wage Board Award or otherwise be dealt with in terms of the mechanism provided Under Section 17 of the Act." All contempt petitions and writ petitions were disposed of accordingly.