Supreme Court of India
AVISHEK RAJA & ORS.versusSANJAY GUPTA
- Citation
- 2017 INSC 488
- Decided
- 19 June 2017
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- RANJAN GOGOI
Holding
The alleged non‑implementation of the Majithia Wage Board Award was not wilful contempt; therefore, none of the newspaper establishments were guilty of civil contempt and the disputes must be resolved under the remedial mechanisms of the 1955 Act.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined a large group of contempt petitions filed by newspaper establishments alleging that they had failed to implement the Majithia Wage Board Award, which had been upheld by the Court in a 2014 judgment. The petitioners claimed wilful disobedience of the award, seeking civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Court held that the alleged non‑implementation stemmed from a mistaken understanding of the award’s scope, not from a deliberate refusal to comply, and therefore did not constitute wilful contempt. It clarified that disputes over Clause 20(j), applicability to contractual employees, variable pay, and financial losses must be resolved under Section 17 of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1955. The Court further ruled that writ petitions under Article 32 concerning transfers or terminations are matters of service conditions and should be dealt with by the appropriate labour authorities, not by the Court’s contempt jurisdiction. Consequently, none of the newspaper establishments were held guilty of contempt and all pending contempt and writ petitions were dismissed.
Issues considered
- The alleged non‑implementation of the Majithia Wage Board Award amounts to civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
- Whether the default by newspaper establishments was wilful disobedience of the Court’s 2014 judgment.
- Interpretation of Clause 20(j) of the Wage Board Award regarding the option to retain existing pay scales.
- Whether the award applies to contractual newspaper employees.
- Inclusion of variable pay in the wage calculations under the award.
- The effect of alleged heavy cash losses on the obligation to pay arrears.
- Whether the Court can expand or clarify its earlier 2014 judgment in contempt proceedings.
- Maintainability of writ petitions under Article 32 seeking interference with transfers or terminations.
Legislation cited
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971s. 2(b)
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
- Minimum Wages Act, 1948
- Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955s. 12, s. 13, s. 13AA, s. 13DD, s. 16, s. 16A, s. 17, s. 17B, s. 2(c), s. 9
Subjects
civil contemptContempt of Courts ActWorking Journalists ActWage Board AwardClause 20(j)variable paycontractual employeesArticle 32writ petitionlabour lawimplementation of awardwilful disobedience
Judgment
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 1028
A AVISHEK RAJA & ORS.
v.
SANJAY GUPTA
(Contempt Petition"(Civil) No. 411 of 2014)
B 01
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 246of2011)
JUNE19,2017 .
[RANJAN GOGOi AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
c Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:
s.2(b) - Civil Contempt - When not - Employees in newspaper
establishments - Majithia Wage Board constituted by Central
Government in exercise of its powers u/ss. 9 and l 3C of the 1955
Act - Recommendations of said Wage Board accepted and notified
D by Central government - Writ petition before Supreme Court
challenging said recommendations as well as notification by Central
Government - Writ petitions dismissed vide judgment dated
07.02.2014, thereby approving award of Wage Board - Contempt
petitions filed alleging non-payment of wages/allowances as per
E the award of wage board and thus non-implementation/partial
implementation of award by newspaper establishments- Held: Part
implementation/non-implementation of the Wage Board award by
the concerned newspaper establishments is on account of what the
said establishments perceived to be the scope and ambit of Wage
Board award as approved and notified by the Central Government,
F the challenge to which was dismissed by Supreme Court by judgment
dated 7.2.2014 - Thus, the default alleged took place on account
of a wrong understanding of the award as upheld by Supreme Court
and the same would not amount to wilful default so as to attract the
liability of civil contempt as defined uls. 2(b) - Further, though, the
G de/au/( alleged is evident, in absence of any willful or deliberate
intention to commit the same, none of the newspaper establishments
in the facts of the case are held guilty of commission of contempt -
Further, complailits with regard to non-implementation of the Wage
Board or otherwise be dealt with in terms of mechanism provided u/
s. 17 ~ The Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees
H
. 1028
AVISHEK RAJA & ORS. v. SANJAY GUPTA 1029
(Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 - A
ss. 2(c), 9, 12, 13, 13AA, 13C, 13DD, 16A and 17.
Contempt of Court - Standard of proof - Discussed.
The Working Journalists and Other Newspaper employees
(Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955:
B
Purpose of enactment - Held: To provide the minimum, if not
a fair wage, to newspaper employees.
s.12 - Wages notified under, by Central Government - Nature
of - The wages notified supersedes all existing contracts governing
wages as may be in force - However, the Legislature has made it C
clear by way of of s.16 that, notwithstanding the wages as may be
fixed and notified, it will always be open to the concerned employee
to agree to and accept any benefits. which is more favourable to him
than what has been notified uls.12.
Doctrines/Principles - Doctrine of Waiver - Applicability of 0
- Wage Board award (Clause 20(j)) gave an option to employees to
retain their existing pay scale and not opt for wages as recommended
by the Board and notified by Central Government - Undertakings
given by the employees (although alleged to be involuntary/given
un.der duress) agreeing to be· governed by previous wage structure,
the same being less favourable - Plea of contempt petitioners that E
such undertaking opting for less favourable benefits than what was
recommended by Wage Board is non est in law - Held: The Act is
silent on the availability of an option to receive less than what is
due to an employee under the Act - Such an option lies in the domain
of the doctrine of waiver, an issue that does not arise in the pl't!sent F
case in view of specific stand of the employees with regard to the
involuntary nature of undertakings allegedly furnished by them ...:
Such dispute has to be resolved by the fact finding authority u/s.17
of the Act - The Working Journalists and Other Newspaper
Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1955 - s.17. G
Constitution of India - Art. 32 - Writ petitions under, seeking
interference with transfer/termination - Non-maintainability of -
Held: Such writ petitions are relatable to service conditions of the
concerned writ petitioners and adjudication of such questions in
H
1030 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 6 S.C.R.
A the exercise of high prerogative writ jurisdiction of this. Court u/
Art. 32 of the Constitution, unjustified - Such questions should be
left for determination before the appropriate quthority either under
the Act or under cognate provisions of law.
Disposing of the matters, the Court
B HELD: 1.1 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. [Para 20) [1049-D-E)
1.2 From the stand adopted by the newspaper
C establishments in the various counter affidavits filed; from the
statements made in the reports submitted by the Labour
Commissioners of different States from time to time; and also
from the written arguments filed and the oral submissions
advanced, it is clear that part implementation/non-implementation
D of the Wage Board Award by the concerned newspaper
establishments is on account of what the said establishments
perceived to be the scope and ambit of the Wage Board Award as
approved and notified by the Central Government, the challenge
to which was dismissed by this Court by judgment dated
07.02.2014. The stand taken for what is alleged to be non-
E implementation or partial implementation of the Award, having
clearly stemmed from the understanding of the Award of the
concerned newspaper establishments in a particular manner, the
said establishments cannot be held to have wilfully disobeyed
the judgment of this Court dated 07.02.2014. At best, the default
F alleged took 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, in the absence of
any wilful or deliberate intention to commit the same cannot make
G any of the newspaper establishments liable for contempt. [Para
22) [1051-B-F)
1.3 None of the newspaper establishments in the facts of
the cases is held guilty of commission of contempt. Further, all
complaints with regard to non-implementation of the Wage Board
H
AVISHEK RAJA & ORS. v. SANJAY GUPTA 1031
Award or otherwise be dealt with in terms of the mechanism A
provided under Section 17 of the The Working Journalists and
Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955. It would be more appropriate
to resolve such complaints and grievances by resort to the
enforcement and remedial machinery provided under the Act
8
rather than by any future approaches to the Courts in exercise of
the contempt jurisdiction of the Courts or otherwise. [Para 27)
(1054-C-D)
2. Clause 20(j) of the Award, gave an option to the
employees to retain their existing pay scale and not opt for the
wages as recommended by the Board and notified by the Central C
Government. Insofar as the highly contentious issue of Clause
200) of the Award read with the provisions of the 1955 Act is
concerned, it is clear that what the Act guarantees to each
"newspaper employee" as defined in Section 2(c) of the Act is
the entitlement to receive wages as recommended by the Wage D
Board and approved and notified by the Central Government
under Section 12 of the Act. The wages notified supersedes all
existing contracts governing wages as may be in force. However,
the Legislature has made it clear by incorporating the provisions
of Section 16 that, notwithstanding the wages as may be fixed
and notified, it will always be open to ~he concerned employee to E
agree to and accept any benefits which is more favourable to him
than what has been notified under Section 12 of the Act. Clause
20(j) of the Wage Board Award will, therefore, have to be read
and understood in the above light. The Act is silent on the
availability of an option to receive less than what is due to an F
employee under the Act. Such an option really lies in the domain
of the doctrine of waiver, an issue that does not arise in the present
case in view of the specific stand of the concerned employees in
the present case with regard to the involuntary nature of the
undertakings allegedly furnished by them. The dispute that arises,
therefore, has to be resolved by the fact finding authority under G
Section 17 of the Act. [Para 24] [1052-B-E)
3. The purpose sought to be achieved by the enactment of
the 1955 Act is to provide the minimum, if not a fair wage, to
newspaper employees. (Para 25) [1052-F-G]
H
1032 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 6 S.C.R.
A 4. Writ petitions seeking interference with transfer/
termination are relatable to service conditions of the concerned
writ petitioners and 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
B questions should be left for determination before the appropriate ·
authority either under the Act or under cognate p,rovisions of law
(Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 etc.). [Para 28] [1054-E]
Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. State ofAjmer AIR
1955 SC 33 : [1955) SCR 752 - followed.
Kapildeo Prasad Sah v. State of Bihar (1999) 7 SCC
c 569 : [1999] 1 Suppl. SCR 725; Ashok Paper Kamgar
Union v. Dharam Godha (2003) 11 SCC 1; Anil Kumar
Shahi v. Professor .Ram Sevak Yadav (2008) 14 SCC
115 : [2008) 11 SCR 211; Jhareswar Prasad Paul v.
Tarak Nath Ganguly (2002) 5 SCC 352 : [2002) 3 SCR
D 913; Union of India v. Subedar Devassy PV (2006) 1
SCC 613 : (2006) 1 SCR 303; Bihar Finance Service
House Construction Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Gautam
Goswami (2008) 5 SCC 339 : [2008). 3 SCR 1137;
Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati (2001) 7 SCC 530; Noor
Saba v. Anoop Mishra (2013) 10 SCC 248 : (2013) 9
E SCR 679; Sudhir Vasudeva v. George Ravishekaran
(2014) 3 SCC 373 : [2014) 4 SCR 27 - relied on.
Case Law Reference
[1999] 1 Suppl. SCR 725 relied on Para 19
F (2003) n sec 1 relied on Para 20
[2008] 11 SCR 211 relied on Para 20
[2002] 3 SCR 913 relied on Para 20
[2006). 1 SCR 303 relied on Para 20
G [2008) 3 SCR 1137 relied on Para 20
(2001) 7 sec 530 relied on Para 20
1291.3) 9 SCR. 679 relied on Para 20
[2014] 4 SCR 27 relied on Para 21
H [1955) SCR 752 followed Para 25
AVISHEK RAJA & ORS. v. SANJAY GUPTA 1033
, CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Contempt Petition (Civil) A
No. 411 of2014 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 246of2011
Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia
WITH
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 33 OF 2015 in WP (C) No. 246 of
2011, B
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 572 OF 2014 in WP (C)No. 246 of
2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 34 OF 2015 in WP (C) No. 246 of
2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 571OF2014 in WP (C)No. 246 of C
2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 38 OF 2015 IN WP (C) N0.246
OF20!1,
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 46 of2015 in WP (C) No. 246 of
2011, D
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 50 of2015 in WP (C) No. 264 of
2012,
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 158 of2015 IN WP (C) No. 510 of
2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 174 OF 2015 IN WP (C) No. 510 E
of2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 101 of2015 IN WP (C) No. 246 of
2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 103 of2015 in WP (C) No. 246 of
2011, F
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 104 of2015 IN WP (C) No. 246 of
2011,
Cont~mpt Petition (Civil) No. 105 of 201 S in WP (C) No. 246 of
2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil)No.106 OF 2015 in WP (C)No. 246of G
2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 107of2015 in WP (C) No. 246 of
2011, . .
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 109 of 2015 in WP (C) No. 246 of
2011, H
~:::;;:~re~--
1034 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 6 S.C.R.
A Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 110 of2015 in WP(C) No. 246 of
20ll,
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 111 of 2015 in WP(C) No. 246 of
20ll,
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. ll2 of 2015 in WP(C) No. 246 of
B 20ll,
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. ll3 of 2015 in WP(C) No. 246 of
2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 120 of 2015 in WP (C) No. 246 of·
2011,
C Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 121of 2015 in WP (C) No. 246 of
20ll,
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 127 of 2015 in WP (C) No. 246 of
20ll,
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 128 of 2015 in WP (C) No. 246 of
D 2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 129 of 2015 in WP (C) No. 246 of
2011, •
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 131of2015 in WP (C) No. 246 of
2011,
E Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 132 of 2015 in WP (C) No. 246 of
20ll,
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 133 of 2015 in WP (C) No. 246 of
2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 134 of 2015 in WP (C) No. 246 of
F 20ll,
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 149 of 2015 in WP (C) No. 246 of
20ll,
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 150 of 2015 in WP (C) No. 246 of
2011,
G Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 151of2015 in WP (C) No. 246 of
2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 152 of 2015 in WP (C) No. 246 of
20ll,
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 153 of 2015 in WP (C) No. 246 of
H 20ll,
AVISHEK RAJA & ORS. v. SANJAY GUPTA 1035
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 154 of 2015 in WP (C) No. 246 of A
2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 155 of 2015 in WP (C) No. 246 of
2011,
ContemptPetition(Civil)No. 102 of 2015 in WP (C) No. 246 of
2011, B
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 157 of 2015 in WP (C) No. 246 of
2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 283 of 2015 in WP (C) No. 246 of
2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 284 of 2015 in WP (C) No. 246 of C
2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 285 of 2015 in WP (C) No. 246 of
2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 286 of 2015 in WP (C) No. 246 of
2011, D
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 290 of 2015 in WP (C) No. 246 of
2011, .
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 287 of 2015 in WP (C) No. 246 of
2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 288 of 2015 in WP (C) No. 246 of E
2011, •
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 291 of 2015 in WP (C) No. 246 of
2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 450 of 2015 in WP(C) No. 246 of
2012, F
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 385 of 2015 in WP (C) No. 246 of
2012,
Contempt Petition (Civil) D. No. 25425 of2015 in WP (C) No.
246of2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) D. No. 25424 of2015 in WP (C) No. G
246 of2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) D. No. 25423 of 2015 in WP (C) No.
246 of 2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) D. No. 25427 of 2015 in WP (C) No.
246 of2011, H
1036 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 6 S.C.R.
A Contempt Petition (Civil) D. No. 25426of 2015 in WP (C) No.
246 of 2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) D. No. 25583 of 2015 in WP (C) No.
246 of 2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) D. No. 21713 of 2015 in WP (C) No.
B 246of2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) D. No. 25577 of 2015 in WP (C) No.
246 of 2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) D. No. 12967 of 2015 in WP (C) No.
246 of 2011,
C Contempt Petition (Civil) D. No. 25581 of 2015 in WP (C) No.
246 of 2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) D. No. 23904 of.2015 in WP (C) No.
246 of 2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) D. No. 25578 of 2015 in WP (C) No.
D 246 of 2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) D. No. 25579 of 2015 in WP (C) No.
246of2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) D. No. 25431 of 2015 in WP (C) No.
246 of 2011,
E Contempt Petition (Civil) D. No. 25432 of 2015 in WP (C) No.
246 of 2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) D. No. 26077 of 2015 in WP (C) No.
246 of 2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) D. No. 26256 of 2015 in WP (C) No.
F 246of2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) D. No. 26078 of 2015 in WP (C) No.
246 of 2011, _
Contempt Petition (Civil) D. No. 25430 of 2015 in WP (C) No.
246 of 2011,
G Contempt Petition (Civil) D. No. 8429 of2016 in WP (C) No. 246
of2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) D. No. 20025 of2016 in WP (C) No.
246of2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) D. No. 23037 of 2016 in WP (C) No.
H 246of2011,
AVISHEK RAJA & ORS. v. SANJAY GUPTA 1037
Contempt Petition (Civil) D. No. 18567 of2016 in WP (C) No. A
246of2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) D. No. 27528 of 2016 in WP (C) No.
246 of2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) D. No. 33442 of 2016 in WP (C) No.
246 of2011, B
Contempt Petition (Civil) D. No. 33441 of2016 in WP (C) No.
246of2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) D. No. 36110 of2016 in WP (C) No.·
246 of2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) D. No. 36227 of 2016 IN WP (C) No. C
246 of2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) D. No. 36810 of 2016 in WP (C) No.
246of2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) D. No. 40055 of 2016 in WP (C) No.
246of2011, D
Contempt Petition (Civil) D. No. 972 of 2017 in WP (C) No. 246
of2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) D. No. 11857 of 2017 in WP (C) No.
246 of201 l,
Contempt Petition (Civil) D. No. 6277 of2017 in WP (C)No. 246 E
of2011,
Contempt Petition (Civil) D. No. 13520 of 2017 in WP (C) No.
246 of2011, ·
WP (C) No. 998 of 2016,
WP (C) No. 148 of2017 & F
WP (C) No. 299 of2017.
A. Mariarputham, Adv. Gen., Purushaindra Kaurav, C. D. Singh,
Anil Grover, S.S. Shamshel)', AAGs., Colin Gonsalves, Mohan Parasaran,
P.P. Rao, Vijay Hansaria, K. Dutta, Rana Mukherjee, Gopal Jain, Salman
Khurshid, N.K. Mody, Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, Mahabir Singh, N. G
Rai, Sr. Advs. Parmanand Pandey, Utkarsh Pandey, Ajay Majithia,
Shekhar Kumar, Dinesh Kumar Garg, Prashant Bhushan, Vinod P.andey,
Govind Jee, 0. Kuttan, Nitin KumarThakur,Ashwin Yaish, Govind, Nitin
Kumar Thakur, Kuna! Verma, Yugandhara P. Jha, Ms. Priyanka Ashok,
H
1038 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 6 S.C.R.
A Prasanna Mohan, Fidel S., Satya Mitra, N. Eswara Rao, V. Srinivas
Rao, Mis. M. Rambabu & Co., Mullapudi Rambabu, Kedar Nath
Tripathy, Abhinav Mukerji, H.K. Chaturvedi, Pijush K. Roy, Mrs. Kakali
Roy, Rajan K. Chourasia, Praveen Swarup, Umesh Sharma, Ms. Sunita
Bhardwaj, Ms. Farha Faiz, Megh Pal Singh, Satish Kumar, Sunil Vijay,
C.S. Dadhich, Manender Singh Solanki, Raj Singh Rana, V. M. Srivastava,
B
Mahesh Srivastava, P. N. Puri, Rakesh Mishra, Milind Kumar, Balraj
Dewan, P. George Giri, Narender Kumar Verma, Barun Kumar Sinha,
Mrs. Pratibha Sinha, Santosh Kumar, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, A.
Raghunath, Rajhans Rajeev Pandey, Ms. V.E. Gayathri, Yogamaya M.G.,
Arjun Garg, Ms. Anuradha Mishra, Sapam Biswajit Maitei, Naresh
c Kumar Gaur, Ms. B. Khushbansi, Ashok Kumar Singh, K. Dutta, Birendra
Kumar Mishra, Aashish Verma, Ms. Poonam Attrey, Rahul Malhotra,
Ashish Verma, Shantanu Parashar, (ForTatini Basu), Ms. Sakshi Kakkar,
Abhiuday Pratap Singh, Chandra Prakash, Vivek Singh, Chirag M. Shroff,
C. K. Sasi, D. S. Mahra, Guntur Prabhakar, Ms. Prerna Singh, K. V.
D Vijayakumar, R.K. Sinha, Nitin Kumar Thakur, Parijat Sinha, Ranjan
Mukherjee, Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Samir
Ali Khan, Sibo Sankar Mishra, V. G. Pragasam, Prabu Ramasubramanian,
V. N. Raghupathy, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Avneesh Arputham, Ms. Anuradha
Arputham, Amit Arora, (for Mis Arputham, Aruna& Co.), Mis Corporate
Law Group, Bhupesh Narula, K.V. .l:1gdishvaran, Ms. G. Indira, Ms.
E Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Puja Singh, Ms. Mamta Singh, Ms. K. Enatoli
Serna, Edward Belho, Amit Kumar Singh, K. Luikang Michael, Ms. Elix
Gangmei, Z.H. Isaac Haiding, Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Ms. Monika,
Sukrit R. Kapoor, Nitya Madhusoodhanan, Arjun Vinod Bonde, Rajat
Joseph, Debmalya Banerjee, A.S. Aman, Manish Sharma. Aviral Kapoor,
Mohammed Rain, (for Mis. Karanjawala & Co.), Ajay Choudhary,
F
Mahesh Kumar Vijayvergiya, Jayant Kumar Mehta, Abhijeet Srivastava,
Ankur Mody, Sachin Gupta, Ms. Pragya Baghel, Anil Shrivastav, Dinesh
Kumar Tiwary, Mrs. Rajmala Dohare, Raghwendra Tiwary, Chandan
Kumar, Sanjay Chakrabarty, Mohan Lal Sharma, Keshav Chauhan,
Ramesh Thakur, Santosh KumarTripathi, P. Gautam, Ajay Kumar Singh,
G Ms. Sheenu Chauhan, Vijay K. Jain,Anil Karnwal, Sanjeev K. Bhardwaj,
Shyam D. Nandan, Shuvodeep Roy, Sayooj Mohandas M., Ms. Anuradha
Mutatkar, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Mrityunjai Singh, Ms. Anisha Mathur,
S.Wasim A. Quadri, D.L. Chidanand, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Ms. Meenakshi
Grover, Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, B.K. Prasad, Devashish Bharuka, Sanjiv
Goel, Ms. Arpita Bishnoi, Vaibhav Niti, Ms. Himanjali Gautam, Ravi
H
AVISHEK RAJA & ORS. v. SANJAY GUPTA 1039
[RANJAN GOGOI, J.]
Bharuka, Gautam Awasthi, Nikhil Jain, Ayush Choudhary, Rahul Tripathi, A
Ram Sajan Yadav, Ashutosh Mishra, Satya Prakash, Manu Beri, Mrs.
V.D. Khanna, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, K. Krishna Kumar, Tarun Gupta,
Tapesh K. Singh, Kumar Anurag Singh, Mohd. Waqas, Aditya Pratap,
Tapesh Kumar, Aditya Pratap Singh, Ms. Noopur Singhal, Sanjay Kr.
Visen, Arpit Rai, Nishant Katneshwarkar, Amit Sharma, Ankit Raj,
B
Shantanu Sagar, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RANJAN GOGOi, J. 1. The Working Journalists and Other
Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter for short 'the Act') was enacted to c
regulate the conditions of service of workingjournalists and other persons
employed in newspaper establishments throughout the country. The
Act is a comprehensive piece of legislation dealing with, inter alia,
entitlement to gratuity, hours of work, leave as well as fixation of wages
payable both to the working journalists and non-journalist newspaper
employees, as may be. So far as fixation and revision of wages is D
concerned, Section 9 of the Act has left such fixation or revision of
wages in respect of working journalists to be dealt with by a Wage
Board constituted thereunder. The recommendations of the Wage Board,
if accepted, are to be notified by the Central Government under Section
12 of the Act. Section 13 of the Act provides that upon coming into E
operation of the Order of the Central Government under Section 12
every working journalist will be entitled to be paid wages at the rate not
less than what is specified in the Order. Chapter IIA of the Act contains
pari materia provisions with regard to non-journalist employees of
newspaper establishments.
F
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 ofthis Act. " The proviso to Sub-section (-1) of Section
16 and Sub-section (2) would require a specific notice and are, therefore, G
being extracted below.
Proviso to Sub-Section ( 1) Section 16
"Provided that where under any such award, agreement,
H
. 1040 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 6 S.C.R.
A 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 ofthat matter,
notwithstanding that he receives benefits in respect of other
B
matters under this Act.
Sub-Section 2 of Section I 6
(2) Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to preclude
any newspaper employee from entering into an agreement with
c an employer for granting him rights or privileges in respect
of any matter which are more favourable to him than those to
which he would be entitled under this Act. "
3. Section 16A imposes an embargo on the employer for
discharging or dismissing any employee "by reason of his liability for
D payment of wages to newspaper employees at the rates specified in
an order of the Central Government under section I 2, or under
section I 2 read with section I 3AA or section I 3DD".
4. Section 17 of the Act deals with recovery of money due from
an employer. As a core issue on the maintainability of the present
E contempt cases centers around the remedy provided for by the aforesaid
provision of the Act, Section 17 of the Act may be set out hereunder.
"17. (I) Where any amount is due under this Act to a
newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper
employee himself, or any person authorised'by him in writing
in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any
F
member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode
of recovery, make an application to the State Government for
the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State
Government, or such authority, as the State Government may
specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it
G shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Coliector, and
the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same
manner as an arrear of land revenue.
(2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act
to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State
H
AVISHEK RAJA & ORS. v. SANJAY GUPTA 1041
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
Government may, on its own motion or upon application made A
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 B
question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court
for adjudication under that Act or law,
(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). C
5. Section l 7B of the Act provides for appointment oflnspectors
to ensure compliance with the various provisions of the Act.
6. The Central Government in exercise of its powers under
Sections 9 and 13C had constituted two Wage Boards on 24.05.2007 D
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 E
Wage Boards headed by Justice Majithia (hereinafter referred to as the
"Majithia Wage Board") submitted its recommendations to the Central
Government on 31.12.20 I 0. 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. F
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 oflndia, the lead case being G
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 Act
came to be issued which was brought under challenge by amendments
to the writ petitions.
8. The challenge in the aforesaid writ petitions, inter a/ia, was on H
1042 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 6 S.C.R.
A the basis that the Act including the amendment thereto made in the year
1974 was constitutionally invalid and further that the constitution of the
Wage Boards was contrary to the statutory provisions contained in the
Act. The procedure adopted by the Wage Boards in determining the
wages of working journalists as well as non-journalist employees was
erroneous and faulty requiring interfere-nee of the Court.
B
9. The aforesaid Writ petitions challenging the Wage Board
recommendations as well as the Notification dated 11.11.2011 accepting
the said recommendations were negatived by this Court by its judgment
and order dated 07.02.2014. It will be necessary at this stage to
summarize the following conclusions of the Court in its judgment dated
c 07.02.2014 while dismissing the wtit petitions in question.
"(i) After having exhaustively gone through the record of
proceedings and various written communications, we are fully
satisfied that the Majithia Wage Board proceedings had been
conducted and carried out in a legitimate approach and no
D decision of the Wage Board is perceived to having been taken
unilaterally or arbitrarily. Rather all decisions were reached
in a coherent manner in the presence of all the Wage Board
members after having processed various statistics and we find
no irregularity in the procedure adopted by the impugned
E Wage Boards.
(ii) After perusing the relevant documents. we are satisfied
that comprehensive and detailed study has been carried out
by the Wage Board by collecting all the relevant material
information for the purpose o( the Wage Revision. The
F recommendations are arrived at after weighing the pros and
cons o( various methods in the process and principles o( the
Wage Revision in the modern era. It cannot be held that the
wage structure recommended by the Majithia Wage Board is
unreasonable.
G (iii) We have carefully scrutinized all the details. It is clear
that the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission
have not been blindly imported/relied upon by the Majithia
Wage Board. The concept of 'variable pay' contained in the
recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission has
been incorporated into the Wage Board recommendations only
H to ensure that the wages of the newspaper employees are at
AVISHEK RAJA & ORS. v. SANJAY GUPTA 1043
[RANJAN GOGOI, J.]
par with those employees working in other Government A
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 B
Wage Boards are valid in law, based on genuine and
acceptable considerations and there is no valid ground for
inte1ference 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 C
petitions. the wages as revised/ determined shall be pavable
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 {Our equal installments within a period of one year tram
today and continue to pay the revised wages from April. 2014. " D
(Underlining is ours)
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 E
for the preceding three accounting years, i.e., 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-
10. Eight categories of newspaper establishments, based on the average
gross revenue, were worked out and the working as well as non-working
journalist employees were classified into different categories. The
recommendations were not only with regard to revised scale of wages
and "variable pay" but also in respect of revised rates of dearness F
allowance, house rent allowance, transport allowance, hill area allowance
(hardship allowance) etc.
11. At this stage Clause 20(j) of the Majithia Wage Board Award,
which is one of the core areas of controversy in the present proceedings,
may be specifically noticed. G
"200) The revised pay scales shall become applicable to all
employees with effect from the 1'" of July, 2010. However, if
an employee within three weeks from the date of publication
of the Government Notification under Section 12 of the Act
enforcing these recommendations exercises his option for H
1044 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 6 S.C.R.
A retaining his existing pay scale and 'existing emoluments', he
shall be entitled to retain his existing scale and such
emoluments. "
12. The Majithia Wage Board Award also specified that
establishments which suffered heavy cash losses consequently in three
B preceding accounting years shall be exempt from payment of arrears,
which is clear from Clause 21 of the Award extracted below.
"21. The arrears payable from the date of enforcement of the
Award, if any, as a result of retrospective implementation, shall
be paid in three equal installments after every six months from
c the date of enforcement of the Award and the first installment
shall be paid within three months;
Proi;ided that the newspaper establishments, who suffered
heavy cash losses consequently in three accounting years
preceding the date of implementation of the Awards, shall be
D exempt from payment of any arrears. However, these
newspaper establishments would be required to fix salaries
or wages of their employees on notional basis in the revised
scales of pay with effect from the date of implementation of
the Awards, i.e., the l" July, 2010."
E 13. Alleging that wages and allowances as per the Award of the
Majithia Wage Board, duly approved and notified by the Central
Government, have not been paid, the present contempt petitions
(numbering 83) have been filed. Three(3) writ petitions under Article 32
of the Constitution, i.e., Writ Petition Nos. 998 of2016, 148 of2017 and
299 of 2017 have also been filed alleging arbitrary transfer and
F 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
G 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 28!!! of April, 2015:
H
AVISHEK RAJA & ORS. v. SANJAY GUPTA 1045
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
"All the State Governments acting through their respective A
Chief Secretaries shall. within four weeks tram today. appoint
Inspectors under Section 17-B o( 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
B
Employees. including Journalists under the Majithia Wage
Board Award, has been implemented in accordance with the
terms thereof The inspectors appointed by the State
Government will naturally exercise their powers as provided
under the Act and shall submit their report to this Court
through the Labour Commissioners of each State indicating C
the precise findings on the issue indicated above. "
(Emphasis is supplied by us)
Order dated 14J!l of March, 2016:
"We have also taken note of the various interlocutory
applications that have been filed alleging wrongful D
termination of services and fraudulent surrender of the rights
under the Wage Board recommendations to avoid liabilities
in terms ofthe order of the Court. As such complaints received
till date is substantial in number. this Court is not in a position
to individually examine each case. We. therefore. direct the E
Labour Commissioner of each of the States to look into all
such grievances and on determination of the same file
necessary reports before the Court which will also be so filed
on or before J2!l!. July. 2016. We grant libertv to each of the
individual employees who have filed the interlocutory
applications and also such employees who are yet to approach F
this Court but have a grievance of the kind indicated above
to move the Labour Commissioner of the State concerned in
terms of the present order. "
(Emphasis is supplied by us)
G
Order dated 08lh ofNovember, 2016:
"For reasons we do not consider necessary at present to
record the exercise of monitoring the implementation of the
Majithia Wage Board Recommendations on the basis of the
reports called for from the Labour Commissioners of different
H
1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 6 S.C.R.
A States stand deferred to a later date. Instead, it would be
prudent and in fact necessarv to decide certain questions o(
law which now stand formulated and have been submitted to
the Court by Shri Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel.
at the request o( the Court.
B Once the legal formulations are considered and decided.
further orders with regard to the mechanism to implement the
Majithia Wage Board Recommendations will follow. "
(Emphasis is supplied by us)
15. On the basis of the aforesaid orders of the Court, several
reports have been submitted by the Labour Commissioners of different
c States indicating the position with regard to the implementation of the
Majithia Wage Board Award. The said Reports indicate that in some of
the States, some establishments have implemented the Award in full,
whereas others have so implemented the same partially. In some cases
no progress in the matter of implementation has been made at all. The
D 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 ZOU) of the Majithia Award
E 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
F 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
G 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 Dearness Allowance etc.
H
AVISHEK RAJA & ORS. v. SANJAY GUPTA 1047
[RANJAN GOGOI, J.]
(4) As per the reports of the Labour Commissioners submitted to A
this Court a large number of newspaper establishments have
expressed their inability to pay the arrears in view of serious
financial constraints.
16. The petitioners contend that the working journalists as well as
the non-journalist employees are entitled to receive their wages as per B
the Majithia Wage Board Award once the recommendations have been
accepted and notified by the Central Government under Section 12 of
the Act. This, according to the contempt petitioners, flows from the
provisions of Section 13 read with Section 16 of the Act under which
provisions, the Wage Board recommendations, on being notified by the
Central Government under Section 12 of the Act, supersedes all existing c
arrangements including specific contractual arrangements governing
conditions of service of working and non-journalist employees. The
wages recommended by the Wage Board, as approved and accepted by
the Central Government, is guaranteed by the Act to the concerned
working and non-journalist employees. The wages notified can be D
departed only to adopt more beneficial and favourable rates. It is,
therefore, the contention of the contempt petitioners that any agreement
or undertaking to be governed by the previous wage structure, which is
less favourable than what has been recommended by the Majithia Wage
Board, is non est in law. That apart, contentions had been raised that
none of the said undertakings are voluntary and have been obtained E
under duress and under threat of transfer/termination. The contempt
petitioners, therefore, urge that the Majithia Wage Board Award to the
above extent may be clarified by this Court.
17. Insofar as variable pay, contractual employees, and financial
capacity is concerned, it is the case of the contempt petitioners that all F
the above matters have been exhaustively dealt with by the Majithia
Wage Board. The recommendations thereof having been accepted by
the Central Government there is no scope for any further debate or
controversy on the said score. The Wage Board recommendations, as
approved and notified, would apply to all categories of employees, G
including contractual employees, who would also be entitled to variable
pay and computation of all allowances by inclusion of variable pay. All
employers are also obliged to pay the arrears from the stipulated date
unless an establishment has suffered "heavy cash losses" in the three
preceding accounting years preceding the date of implementation of the
H
. 1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 6 S.C.R.
A 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
B
Writ Petition No. 246 of201 I. 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
c form part of the judgment dated 07.02.2014 passed in Writ Petition No.
246of2011, 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 Board Award and hence contended to be a
D part of the judgment dated 07.02.2014 passed in Writ Petition NO. 246
of2011 in respect of which disobedience is alleged.
19. The contours of power of the Court so far as commission of
civil contempt is concerned have been elaborated upon in a number of
pronouncements of this Court. Illustratively, reference may be made to
the following observations in the case of Kapildeo Prasad Sah vs.
E State o( Bihar1 .
"For holding the respondents to have committed contempt,
civil contempt at that, it has to be shown that there has been
wilful disobedience of-the judgment or order of the Court.
Power to punish for contempt is to be resorted to when there
F is clear violation of the Court's order. Since notice of contempt .
and punishment for contempt is of far reaching consequence
and these powers should be invoked onlv when a clear case
of wilful disobedience of the court's order has been made
out. Whether disobedience is wilful in a particular case
depends on the facts and circumstances of that case. Judicial
G
orders are to be properly understood and complied with. Even
negligence and carelessness can amount to disobedience
particularly when the attention of the person is drawn to the
Court's orders and its implication.
H 1
(1999) 7 sec 569
AVISHEK RAJA & ORS. v. SANJAY GUPTA 1049
[RANJAN GOGOI, J.]
Jurisdiction to punish for contempt exists to provide ultimate A
sanction against the person who refuses to comply with the
order of the court or disregards the order continuously.
No person can defY the Courts order. Wilful would exclude
casual. accidental. bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine B
inability to comply with the terms of the order. A petitioner
who complains breach of Courts order must allege deliberate
or contumacious disobedience of the Courts order. "
(Emphasis is supplied by us)
20. Similar is the view expressed by this Court in Ashok Paper c
Kamgar Union vs. Dharam Godhal, Anil Kumar Shahi vs. Professor
Ram Sevak Yadav-l, Jhareswar Prasad Paul vs. Tarak Nath Ganguly1-,
Union of India vs. Subedar Devassy PP, Bihar Finance Service
House Construction Co-operative Societv Ltd. vs. Gautam Goswami 6
and Chhotu Ram vs. Urvashi Gulati7. in view of the consistency in D
the opinions rendered therein, it will 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 vs. Urvashi Gulati (supra)]. More recent in point E
of time is the view expressed by this Court in Noor Saba vs. Anoop
Mishra• 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 F
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 summarv in nature
and an adjudication of the liabilitv of the alleged contemnor
'c2003) 11 sec, 1 G
'c2008) 14 sec 115
'c2002) 5 sec 352
'c2006) 1 sec 613
• c2008) 5 sec 339
1
c2001)1 sec s3o
• c2013) 10 sec 248
.H
1050 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 6 S.C.R.
A for wilful disobedience of the Court is normally made on
admitted and undisputed facts. Jn the present case not only
there has been a shift in the stand of the petitioner with regard
to the basic (acts on which commission of contempt has been
alleged even the said new/altered facts do not permit an
adjudication in consonance with the established principles
B
of exercise o( contempt jurisdiction so as to enable the Court
to come to a conclusion that any of the respondents have
wilfully disobeyed the order o( this Court .... "
(Emphasis is supplied by us)
21. Similarly, in Sudhir Vasudeva vs. George Ravishekaran 9
c the issue has been dealt with in a manner which may be of relevance to
the present case. Para 19 of the report is as follows.
"The power vested in the High Courts as well as this Court to
punish for contempt is a special and rare power available
both under the Constitution as well as the Contempt of Courts
D Act of 1971. lt is a drastic power which, if misdirected. could
even curb the libertv of the individual charged with commission
of contempt. The very nature of the power casts a sacred dutv
in the Courts to exercise the same with the greatest of care
and caution. This is also necessary as, more often than not,
E adjudication of a contempt plea involves a process of self-
determination of the sweep, meaning and effect of the order
in respect of which disobedience is alleged. The Courts must
not, therefore. travel beyond the (our corners of the order
which is alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions
that have not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or
F the order violation of which is alleged. Only such directions
which are explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self~
evident ought to be taken into account for the purpose of
consideration as to whether there has been any disobedience
or wilful violation of the same. Decided issues cannot be
G reopened: nor can the plea o( equities be considered. The
Courts must also ensure that while considering a contempt
plea the power available to the Court in other corrective
jurisdictions like review or appeal is not trenched upon. No
order or direction supplemental to what has been already
H • (2014) 3 sec 373
AVISHEK RAJA & ORS. v. SANJAY GUPTA 1051
[RANJAN GOGOI, J.]
expressed should be issued by the Court while exercising A
jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law; such an
exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions vested in
the Court, as noticed above. "
(.Emphasis is supplied bv us)
22. From the stand adopted by the newspaper establishments in B
the various counter affidavits filed; from the statements made in the
reports submitted by the Labour Commissioners o( different States from
time to time; and also from the written arguments filed and the oral
submissions advanced it is clear that part implementation/non-
implementation of the Majithia Wage Board Award by the concerned c
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 oftlie Award, D
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 E
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 wilful or deliberate intention to commit the
same cannot make any of the newspaper establishments liable for F
contempt. On the other hand, they are entitled to one more opportunity
to implement the Award in its proper spirit and effect in the light of what
we now propose to say.
23. The Majithia Wage Board Award has been approved by this
Court by its judgment dated 07.02.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 246 G
of201 I. The Award, therefore, has to be implemented in full. While it
is correct that issues concerning, (i) Clause 20(j); (ii) whether the award
applies to contractual employees; (iii) whether it includes variable pay
and (iv) the extent of financial erosion that would justify withholding of
H
1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 6 S.C.R.
A payment of arrears has not been specifically dealt with either in the
Award or in the judgment of this Court, there can be no manner of
doubt that a reiteration of the scope and ambit of the terms of the Award
would necessarily be called for and justified. This is what we propose to
do hereinafter so as to ensure due and full compliance with the order(s)
B of the Court.
24. Insofar as the highly contentious issue of Clause 20(j) of the
Award read with the provisions of the Act is concerned it is clear that
what the Act guarantees to each "newspaper employee" as defined in
Section 2(c) of the Act is the entitlement to receive wages as
recommended by the Wage Board and approved and notified by the
C Central Government under Section 12 of the Act. The wages notified
supersedes all existing contracts governing wages as may be in force.
However, the Legislature has made it clear by incorporating the provisions
of Section 16 that, notwithstanding the wages as may be fixed and notified,
it will always be open to the concerned employee to agree to and accept
D any benefits which is more favourable to him than what has been notified
under Section 12 of the Act. Clause 20(j) of the Majithia Wage Board
Award will, therefore, have to be read and understood in the above light.
The Act is silent on the availability of an option to receive less than what
is due to an employee under the Act. Such an option really lies in the
domain of the doctrine of waiver, an issue that does not arise in the
E present case in view of the specific stand of the concerned employees
in the present case with regard to the involuntary nature of the
undertakings allegedly furnished by them. The dispute that arises,
therefore, has to be resolved by the fact finding authority under Section
17 of the Act, as adverted to hereinafter.
F 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. vs. State of'
Ajmer' 0 , holding wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 to
be non-negotiable would squarely govern the wages notified under the
G 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
10
H AIR 1955 SC 33
AVISHEK RAJA & ORS. v. SANJAY GUPTA 1053
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
but also the maintenance of health and decency, is conducive A
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 conventioli were embodied in the B
International Labour Code. The Minimum Wages Act is said
to have been passed with a view to give effect to these
resolutions. Vide -South India Estate Labour Relations
Organisation vs. State of Madras 11 •
If the labourers are to be secured in the enjoyment of minimum
wages and they are to be protected against exploitation by c
their employers, it is absolutely necessary that restraints
should be imposed upon their freedom of contract and such
restrictions cannot in any sense be said to be unreasonable.
On the other hand, the employers cannot be heard to complain
if they are compelled to pay minimum wages to their labourers D
even though the labourers, on account of their poverty and
helplessness are willing to work on lesser wages. "
(Emphasis is ours)
26. 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 E
benefits ofthe..(\.ward would be restricted to the regular employe1:s and
not contractuai"employees. In this regard we have taken note ·ofthe
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. Insofar as "variable pay" is concerned, as already F
· 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 G
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 61h Pay Commission and was intended to bring the working
11
AIR 1955 Mad 45 at p.47 H
1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 6 S.C.R.
A journalist and non-journalist employees covered by the Act at par with
the Central Government employees to the extent possible. So far as the
concept of heavy cash losses is concerned, we are of the view that the
very expression itself indicates that the same is different from mere
financial difficulties and such losses apart from the extent of being crippling
in nature must be consistent over the period of time stipulated in the
B
Award. This is a question of fact that has to be determined from case to
case.
27. 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 before us, be held guilty of commission of contempt,
C 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
D 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.
E 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 questi01is 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 may
be.
F
29. In the light of the above, all the contempt petitions as well as
the writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution shall stand
answered and disposed of in the terms hereinabove.
Divya Pandey Matters disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "civil contempt"Sign in to search