wc24611 PDF
wc24611 PDF
wc24611 PDF
Versus
WITH
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 252 OF 2012 IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 538 OF 2011
JUDGMENT
P.Sathasivam, CJI.
1
Page 1
India, have been filed by the petitioners (management of
Factual Background:
13C of the Act to constitute two Wage Boards, viz., one for the
2
Page 2
working journalists and other for non-journalist newspaper
Newspaper Establishments;
who is, or has been a Judge of the High Court or the Supreme
Chairman thereof.
3
Page 3
(i) Divatia Wage Board
4
Page 4
(iii) Palekar Wage Board
5
Page 5
nt e
17.07.1985 31.08.1989 The award was challenged in Indian
Express Newspapers (Pvt.) Ltd.
and Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.
1995 Supp (4) SCC 758.
one for the Working Journalists and the other for Non-Journalist
6
Page 6
Chairman and six of the remaining nine members were
7
Page 7
of the two Wage Boards has been as under:-
8
Page 8
Organizations. Newspaper
Employees
Discussion
Act, 1974.
Wage Boards.
9
Page 9
drafting the recommendations
succeeding paragraphs.
8) Heard Mr. Anil B. Divan, Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Mr. P.P. Rao,
Mr. Aman Lekhi, Mr. S.S. Ramdas, Mr. Brijender Chahar, learned
senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Gopal Jain, Mr. Akhil Sibal,
Mr. Nachiket Joshi, Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Ms. Bina Gupta, Mr.
journalists.
1974
10
Page 10
has become obsolete with the passage of time.
since the Act only regulates the print media and not electronic
as cotton, sugar, tea, coffee, rubber, cement, jute, all the Wage
the last in 1989). They further emphasized on the fact that the
11
Page 11
Indian economy after de-regulation and privatization, the
12
Page 12
journalists.
class talent.
13
Page 13
Boards have lost their utility and purpose for which they were
set up and the 1955 Act have become outdated and have
Board (Vth Wage Board) was also set aside by the Karnataka
view of the above assertions and taking into account the ground
14
Page 14
the petitioners also relied on the decisions of this Court in John
17) This is not the first time when the aspect as to the
Newspaper (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India AIR 1958 SC 578 and
15
Page 15
imposes reasonable restrictions in the interests of a section of
the general public viz. the working journalists and other
persons employed in the newspaper establishments. It does
not fall within any of the categories specified in Article 19(2)
viz.
Article 19(2) being thus out of the question, the only point
that falls to be determined by us is whether the provisions of
the impugned Act in any way take away or abridge the
petitioners, fundamental right of freedom of speech and
expression.
161. Even though the impugned Act enacts measures for the
benefit of the working journalists who are employed in
newspaper establishments, the working journalists are but
16
Page 16
the vocal organs and the necessary agencies for the exercise
of the right of free speech and expression, and any legislation
directed towards the amelioration of their conditions of
service must necessarily affect the newspaper establishments
and have its repercussions on the freedom of press. The
impugned Act can therefore be legitimately characterized as
a measure which affects the press, and if the intention or the
proximate effect and operation of the Act was such as to
bring it within the mischief of Article 19(1)(a) it would
certainly be liable to be struck down. The real difficulty,
however, in the way of the petitioners is that whatever be the
measures enacted for the benefit of the working journalists
neither the intention nor the effect and operation of the
impugned act is to take away or abridge the right of freedom
of speech and expression enjoyed by the petitioners.
17
Page 17
provisions, was not such a law but was a beneficent legislation
case could not be the direct and inevitable result of it. It also
the law were to single out the press to lay prohibitive burdens,
impugned Act which directly affected the press fall outside the
18
Page 18
Challenge qua Article 14
19
Page 19
employers vis-à-vis working journalists from the general
operation of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Act 1 of
1955.
212. We have already set out what the Press Commission had
to say in regard to the position of the working journalists in
our country. A further passage from the Report may also be
quoted in this context:
20
Page 20
essential purpose of a newspaper is not only to give news but
to educate and guide public opinion, a change in the
proprietorship or in the editorial policy of the paper may
result and in some cases has resulted in a wholesale change
of the staff on the editorial side. These circumstances, which
are peculiar to journalism must be borne in mind in framing
any scheme for improvement of the conditions of working
journalists.” (para 512).
21
Page 21
conditions of their service and the constitution of a Wage
Board for this purpose was one of the established modes of
achieving that object. If, therefore, such a machinery was
devised for their benefit, there was nothing objectionable in it
and there was no discrimination as between the working
journalists and the other employees of newspaper
establishments in that behalf…
20) The above position has been reiterated by this Court in the
22
Page 22
industry play a dominant role and considering the employees
of newspaper industry as a “class”, this benefit was extended
almost at the same time when the Working Journalists Act
was enacted. Thus, there can be no question of any adverse
effect on the freedom of press. The financial burden on the
employer, on facts as herein, cannot be said to be a “harsh
treatment”. The contention that now the petitioners are
unable to bear the financial burden which they have been
bearing for the last over forty-five years is wholly irrelevant. It
is for the petitioners to manage their affairs if they intend to
continue with their activity as newspaper establishment.
31. This Court noticed that the journalists are but the vocal
organs and the necessary agencies for the exercise of the
right of free speech and expression and any legislation
directed towards the amelioration of their conditions of
service must necessarily affect the newspaper establishments
and have its repercussions on the freedom of press. The
impugned Act can, therefore, be legitimately characterised as
a measure which affects the press and if the intention or the
proximate effect and operation of the Act was such as to
bring it within the mischief of Article 19(1)(a), it would
certainly be liable to be struck down. The real difficulty,
however, in the way of the petitioners is that whatever be the
measures enacted for the benefit of the working journalists
neither the intention nor the effect and operation of the
impugned Act is to take away or abridge the right of freedom
of speech and expression enjoyed by the petitioners. The
question of violation of right of freedom of speech and
expression as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) in the
present case on account of additional burden as a result of
the impugned provision does not arise.
23
Page 23
classified as such. If the legislature embarked upon a
legislation for the purpose of ameliorating their conditions of
service, there was nothing discriminatory about it. They could
be singled out for preferential treatment. It was opined that
classification of this type could not come within the ban of
Article 14. Considering the position in regard to the alleged
discrimination between press industry employers on one hand
and the other industrial employers on the other, it was said
that even considering the Act as a measure of social welfare
legislation, the State could only make a beginning somewhere
without embarking on similar legislations in relation to all
other industries and if that was done in this case no charge
could be levelled against the State that it was discriminating
against one industry as compared with the others. The
classification could well be founded on geographical basis or
be according to objects or occupations or the like. The only
question for consideration would be whether there was a
nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the
Act sought to be achieved. Both the conditions of permissible
classification were fulfilled. The classification was held to be
based on an intelligible differentia which had a rational
relation to the object sought to be achieved viz. the
amelioration of the conditions of service of working
journalists. The attack on constitutionality of the Act based on
Article 14 was negatived.
36. Apart from the fact that it may not be always possible
to grant to everyone all benefits in one go at the same time,
it seems that the impugned provision and the enacting of the
24
Page 24
Working Journalists Act was part of a package deal and that
probably is the reason for other newspaper establishments
not challenging it and the petitioners also challenging it only
after lapse of so many years. Further, Sections 2(i), 4 and
Schedule I of the Provident Fund Act show how gradually the
scope of the Act has been expanded by the Central
Government and the Act and Scheme made applicable to
various branches of industries. From whatever angle we may
examine, the attack on the constitutional validity based on
Article 14 cannot be accepted.”
and extend the benefits of the Act to them. Thus, the same is
25
Page 25
decision of this Court. Therefore, the challenge as to the
the petitioners herein that while there may have been some
After the very lapse of a long period from the date of enactment
26
Page 26
this period has made the law discriminatory as it is now
hand.
24) For the ensuing two reasons, this Court is opting for not to
27
Page 27
Secondly, the fact that similar benefits are not extended to the
over the passage of time has outlived its utility and the object
invalidation of the Act and its object. The validity once having
and has been worn out by the passage of time. The principles
28
Page 28
been held in the context of identical factual scenario.
the said judgment also puts the challenge as to the vires of the
Act like the one made by the petitioners in the present case,
the basis for not complying with the statutory obligations under
29
Page 29
28) In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the
completely untenable.
30
Page 30
for employees. On behalf of the petitioners herein (newspaper
Solicitor General for the Union of India and the employees that
31
Page 31
31.12.2006 was appointed as Member-Secretary on 24.01.2007
32) Similar fact underlying this issue has been the subject-
“9. In our judgment the view which has prevailed with the
majority of the High Courts must be sustained. The
committee or the advisory board can only tender advice
which is not binding on the Government while fixing the
minimum wages or revising the same as the case may be. Of
course, the Government is expected, particularly in the
present democratic set-up, to take that advice seriously into
consideration and act on it but it is not bound to do so. The
language of Section 9 does not contain any indication
whatsoever that persons in the employment of the
Government would be excluded from the category of
independent persons. Those words have essentially been
employed in contradistinction to representatives of employer
and employees. In other words, apart from the
representatives of employers and employees there should be
persons who should be independent of them. It does not
follow that persons in the service or employ of the
Government were meant to be excluded and they cannot be
regarded as independent persons vis-à-vis the
representatives of the employers and employees. Apart from
this the presence of high government officials who may have
actual working knowledge about the problems of employers
32
Page 32
and employees can afford a good deal of guidance and
assistance in formulating the advice which is to be tendered
under Section 9 to the appropriate Government. It may be
that in certain circumstances such persons who are in the
service of the Government may cease to have an
independent character if the question arises of fixation of
minimum wages in a scheduled employment in which the
appropriate Government is directly interested. It would,
therefore, depend upon the facts of each particular case
whether the persons who have been appointed from out of
the class of independent persons can be regarded as
independent or not. But the mere fact that they happen to be
government officials or government servants will not divest
them of the character of independent persons. We are not
impressed with the reasoning adopted that a government
official will have a bias, or that he may favour the policy
which the appropriate Government may be inclined to adopt
because when he is a member of an advisory committee or
board he is expected to give an impartial and independent
advice and not merely carry out what the Government may
be inclined to do. Government officials are responsible
persons and it cannot be said that they are not capable of
taking a detached and impartial view.”
34) The petitioners also allege that Mr. P.N. Prasanna Kumar,
33
Page 33
Solicitor General has rightly pointed out that only vague and
34
Page 34
37) The contention of the petitioners alleging bias against
35
Page 35
now be allowed to challenge the same at this stage. More so, it
Central Government.
36
Page 36
intention is to constitute Wage Boards under the said Section 9
37
Page 37
separate entities meant for working journalists and non-
Boards
38
Page 38
succinct, the stand of the petitioners is that Majithia Wage
newspaper owners.
to point out that under Section 11(1) of the Act, Wage Board
39
Page 39
has special powers to regulate its own procedure. It is not
40
Page 40
the employers but many of the petitioners had not given
02.03.2010.
41
Page 41
Report). With all these efforts, financial information could be
only upon much effort and repeated requests that the data in
establishments.
events:
42
Page 42
questionnaire
43
Page 43
Response of the Press Trust of India Ltd. dated
29.09.2009 to the submissions dated 30.06.2009 made
by Federation of PTI Employees’ Union and to the
questionnaire
44
Page 44
be considered by the Wage Boards for making their
45
Page 45
2008.
Oral hearings
Oral hearings
Oral hearings
Oral hearings
46
Page 46
13-14.03.2010 – Oral hearing at Jaipur
Oral hearings
47
Page 47
31.12.2010 Final Report submitted to Government.”
process stands valid. In this respect, we are of the view that the
48
Page 48
representatives of employees agreed for 11 classifications and
Gross Turnover:
II Rs. 500 crore and above but less than Rs. 1000
crore
III Rs. 100 crore and above but less than Rs. 500
crore
VII Rs. 1 crore and above but less than Rs. 5 crore
49
Page 49
52) The petitioners also contended by relying upon two
resolutions passed by the Wage Board that the Wage Board was
themselves.
50
Page 50
adopted by the Wage Boards were alleged which, in our
Boards.
recommendations
51
Page 51
report is alleged to be defective is that the members of the
while fixing rates of wages under the Act. In that case, the
decision of the Wage Board was set aside on the ground that it
employer to pay.
52
Page 52
material factors which the Report itself identifies as governing a
58) On the other hand, it is the stand of the Union of India that
(supra):-
53
Page 53
“16…In view of the amended definition of the “newspaper
establishment” under Section 2(d) which came into operation
retrospectively from the inception of the Act and the
Explanation added to Section 10(4), and in view further of the
fact that in clubbing the units of the establishment together,
the Board cannot be said to have acted contrary to the law
laid down by this Court in Express Newspapers case, the
classification of the newspaper establishments on all-India
basis for the purpose of fixation of wages is not bad in law.
Hence it is not violative of the petitioners’ rights under
Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Financial
capacity of an all-India newspaper establishment has to be
considered on the basis of the gross revenue and the financial
capacity of all the units taken together. Hence, it cannot be
said that the petitioner-companies as all-India newspaper
establishments are not viable whatever the financial
incapacity of their individual units. After amendment of
Section 2(d) retrospectively read with the addition of the
Explanation to Section 10(4), the old provisions can no longer
be pressed into service to contend against the grouping of
the units of the all-India establishments, into one class.”
unreasonable.
54
Page 54
Wage Board in regard to news agencies. It is the stand of the
petitioners that even though this Court had expressly held that
aspect.
one.
62) This Court has a limited jurisdiction to look into this aspect.
55
Page 55
capacity to pay of the News Agencies. It would be inapposite for
merits especially when the Board was constituted for this sole
purpose.
absent.
56
Page 56
gradation of variable pay and allowances according to the size
57
Page 57
‘variable pay’.
sector undertakings, banks and even the private sector are all
58
Page 58
reference to decisions prior to 1995 is irrelevant.
from the report that the Wage Boards have categorized the HRA
making recommendations.
68) It is true that the Wage Boards have made some general
59
Page 59
pension, paternity leave, etc. as these are beyond the main
60
Page 60
representations which they may make in this behalf in
writing; or
(b) refer the recommendations or any part thereof to
the Board, in which case, the Central Government shall
consider its further recommendations and make an order
either in terms of the recommendations or with such
modifications of the nature referred to in sub-section (1)
as it thinks fit.
(3) Every order made by the Central Government
under this section shall be published in the Official
Gazette together with the recommendations of the Board
relating to the order and the order shall come into
operation on the date of publication or on such date,
whether prospectively or retrospectively, as may be
specified in the order.”
age, etc. as these are beyond the mandate for which the Wage
61
Page 61
recommendations which are in the manner of providing higher
order as to costs.
petition is closed.
……….…………………………CJI.
(P. SATHASIVAM)
62
Page 62
..…….……………………………J.
(RANJAN GOGOI)
……….……………………………J.
(SHIVA KIRTI SINGH)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 07, 2014.
63
Page 63