9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elief 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 futu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) No. 246 of 2011, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 133 of 2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 246 of 2011, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 134 of 2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 246 of 2011, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 149 of 2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 246 of 2011, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 150 of 2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 246 of 2011, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 151 of 2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 246 of 2011, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 152 of 2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 246 of 2011, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 153 of 2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 246 of 2011, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 154 of 2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 246 of 2011, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 155 of 2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 246 of 2011, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 102 of 2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 246 of 2011, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 157 of 2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 510 of 2011, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 283 of 2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 246 of 2011, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 284 of 2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 246 of 2011, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 285 of 2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 246 of 2011, Conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vil) No. 246 of 2011, Contempt Petition (Civil) Dairy No. 20025 of 2016 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 246 of 2011, Contempt Petition (Civil) Dairy No. 23037 of 2016 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 246 of 2011, Contempt Petition (Civil) Dairy No. 18567 of 2016 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 246 of 2011, Contempt Petition (Civil) Dairy No. 27528 of 2016 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 246 of 2011, Contempt Petition (Civil) Dairy No. 33442 of 2016 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 246 of 2011, Contempt Petition (Civil) Dairy No. 33441 of 2016 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 246 of 2011, Contempt Petition (Civil) Dairy No. 36110 of 2016 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 246 of 2011, Contempt Petition (Civil) Dairy No. 36227 of 2016 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 246 of 2011, Contempt Petition (Civil) Dairy No. 36810 of 2016 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 246 of 2011, Contempt Petition (Civil) Dairy No. 40055 of 2016 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 246 of 2011, Contempt Petition (Civil) Dairy No. 972 of 2017 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 246 of 2011, Contempt Petition (Civil) Dairy No. 11857 of 2017 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 246 of 2011, Contempt Petition (Civil) Dairy No. 6277 of 2017 in Writ Petition (Civil) No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... journalist employees of newspaper establishments. 2. Section 16 of the Act provides that the provisions thereof shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law or in the terms of any award, agreement or contract of service, whether made before or after the commencement of this Act. The proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 16 and Sub-section (2) would require a specific notice and are, therefore, being extracted below. Proviso to Sub-section (1) Section 16 Provided that where under any such award, agreement, contract of service or otherwise, a newspaper employee is entitled to benefits in respect of any matter which are more favourable to him than those to which he would be entitled under this Act, the newspaper employee shall continue to be entitled to the more favourable benefits in respect of that matter, notwithstanding that he receives benefits in respect of other matters under this Act. Sub-Section 2 of Section 16 (2) Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to preclude any newspaper employee from entering into an agreement with an employer for granting him rights or privileges in respect of any matter which are more favour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 007 under the Chairmanship of one Dr. Justice Narayana Kurup (retired Acting Chief Justice of the High Court of Madras) to determine the wages to be paid to working journalists and non-journalist employees. As Justice Kurup resigned from the post of Chairman on 31.7.2008, Justice G.R. Majithia (retired Judge of the Bombay High Court) was appointed as Chairman of the two Wage Boards on 04.03.2009. The Wage Boards headed by Justice Majithia (hereinafter referred to as the Majithia Wage Board ) submitted its recommendations to the Central Government on 31.12.2010. The same were accepted by the Central Government on 25.10.2011 and a Notification to the said effect, Under Section 12 of the Act, was published on 11.11.2011. 7. Even before the Government Notification Under Section 12 of the Act was published on 11.11.2011 various newspaper establishments affected by the Majithia Wage Board Award had challenged the recommendations of the Wage Board by filing writ petitions before this Court Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the lead case being Writ Petition (C) No. 246 of 2011. During the pendency of the writ petitions the Notification dated 11.11.2011 Under Section 12 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... newspaper employees are at par with those employees working in other Government sectors. Such incorporation was made by the Majithia Wage Board after careful consideration, in order to ensure equitable treatment to employees of newspaper establishments, and it was well within its rights to do so. (iv) Accordingly, we hold that 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. Consequently, all the writ petitions are dismissed. (v) In view of our conclusion and dismissal of all the writ petitions, the wages as revised/determined shall be payable from 11.11.2011 when the Government of India has notified the recommendations of the Majithia Wage Boards. All the arrears up to March, 2014 shall be paid to all eligible persons in four equal installments within a period of one year from today and continue to pay the revised wages from April, 2014. 10. A look at the Majithia Wage Board Award would indicate that the Wage Board had classified newspaper establishments in different categories based on the average gross revenue of the establishments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etition Nos. 998 of 2016, 148 of 2017 and 299 of 2017 have also been filed alleging arbitrary transfer and termination/retrenchment of the concerned journalists and employees, who claim to have demanded due implementation of the Majithia Wage Board Award. The above is the subject matter of consideration in the present group of cases. 14. Considering the issues involved and the large number of contempt petitions that had been brought to this Court, different orders have been pronounced by this Court from time to time to effectively resolve the issues. Orders dated 28.4.2015, 14.3.2016 and 8.11.2016 which are extracted below would require a specific notice and mention. Order dated 28th of April, 2015: All the State Governments acting through their respective Chief Secretaries shall, within four weeks from today, appoint Inspectors Under Section 17-B of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 to determine as to whether the dues and entitlements of all categories of Newspaper Employees, including Journalists under the Majithia Wage Board Award, has been implemented in accordance with the terms thereof. The ins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en made at all. The reasons for non-implementation of the award or partial implementation, as may be, as evident from the reports of the Labour Commissioners can be identified to be four-fold which are indicated below. (1) As reported by the Labour Commissioners in some of the establishments, as per Clause 20(j) of the Majithia Award many employees have agreed to be governed by the wage structure which had existed before the Majithia Wage Board recommendations were accepted and notified by the Central Government. The issue of authenticity and the voluntariness of such undertakings, allegedly submitted by the employees, is also highlighted in the reports of the Labour Commissioner indicating that the same are being subjected to the adjudicatory process under the provisions of Section 17 (quoted above) of the Act. (2) The terms of the Majithia Wage Board Award are required to be implemented by the newspaper establishments only for regular employees and not for contractual employees. (3) The element of variable pay recommended by the Majithia Wage Board and accepted by the Central Government are not required to be taken into account for the purpose of calculating other allowances like ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date unless an establishment has suffered heavy cash losses in the three preceding accounting years preceding the date of implementation of the Award which is to be distinguished from mere financial difficulties, as may be projected by an employer. 18. Opposing the contempt petitions and on behalf of the newspaper establishments it is contended that the four issues, urged on behalf of the contempt Petitioners, identified above, have not been, in any manner, dealt with in the main judgment dated 07.02.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 246 of 2011. It is, therefore, submitted that in the exercise of contempt jurisdiction, the judgment dated 07.02.2014 passed in the main writ petition cannot be amplified, clarified or added to so as to bring the alleged non-compliance within the four corners of limited contempt jurisdiction. As the four issues, crystallized above, does not form part of the judgment dated 07.02.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 246 of 2011, it cannot be urged that any of the newspaper establishments are guilty of commission of contempt for allegedly violating or flouting the said terms/requirements which are now sought to be attributed to be a part of the Majithia Wage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l not be necessary to burden this order by any detailed reference to what has been held in the above cases except to reiterate that the standard of proof required to hold a person guilty of contempt would be the same as in a criminal proceeding and the breach alleged shall have to be established beyond all reasonable doubt [Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati (supra)]. More recent in point of time is the view expressed by this Court in Noor Saba v. Anoop Mishra (2013) 10 SCC 248 wherein the scope of the contempt power in case of a breach of a Court's order has been dealt with in paragraph 14 of the report in the following manner- To hold the Respondents or anyone of them liable for contempt this Court has to arrive at a conclusion that the Respondents have wilfully disobeyed the order of the Court. The exercise of contempt jurisdiction is summary in nature and an adjudication of the liability of the alleged contemnor for wilful disobedience of the Court is normally made on admitted and undisputed facts. In the present case not only there has been a shift in the stand of the Petitioner with regard to the basic facts on which commission of contempt has been alleged even the said new/alt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is clear that part implementation/non-implementation of the Majithia Wage Board Award by the concerned newspaper establishments is on account of what the said establishments have perceived to be the scope and ambit of the Majthia Wage Board Award as approved and notified by the Central Government, the challenge to which has been dismissed by this Court by judgment dated 07.02.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 246 of 2011. The stand taken for what is alleged to be non-implementation or partial implementation of the Award, as may be, having clearly stemmed from the understanding of the Award of the concerned newspaper establishments in a particular manner, it is our considered view that the said establishments cannot be held to have wilfully disobeyed the judgment of this Court dated 07.02.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 246 of 2011. At best, the default alleged has taken place on account of a wrong understanding of the Award as upheld by this Court. This would not amount to wilful default so as to attract the liability of civil contempt as defined Under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The default alleged though is unmistakably evident to us, in the absence of any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, therefore, has to be resolved by the fact finding authority Under Section 17 of the Act, as adverted to hereinafter. 25. In any event having regard to the Legislative history and the purpose sought to be achieved by enactment of the Act i.e. to provide the minimum if not a fair wage to Newspaper employees, the ratio of the pronouncement in Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Ajmer : AIR 1955 SC 33, holding wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 to be non-negotiable would squarely govern the wages notified under the present Act. Para 4 of the report in Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd. (supra) which deals with the above issue is extracted hereinbelow for specific notice. 4. It can scarcely be disputed that securing of living wages to labourers which ensure not only bare physical subsistence but also the maintenance of health and decency, is conducive to the general interest of the public. This is one of the Directive Principles of State Policy embodied in Article 43 of our Constitution. It is well known that in 1928 there was a Minimum Wages Fixing Machinery Convention held at Geneva and the resolutions passed in that convention were embodied in the International Labour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uities in the matter and upon holding that none of the newspaper establishments should, in the facts of the cases before us, be held guilty of commission of contempt, we direct 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. 28. Insofar as the writ petitions seeking interference with transfer/termination, as the case may be, are concerned, it appears that the same are relatable to service conditions of the concerned writ Petitioners. 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 either under the Act or under cognate provisions of law (Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 etc.), as the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
