Holding

The State Government to which the employee makes the application under s.17(1), determined by the location of the central or branch office where the employee works, is the sole authority competent to refer the dispute to a Labour Court under s.17(2).

Summary

S. Ghosh, a journalist employed at the Calcutta branch of Bennett Coleman & Co., applied to the West Bengal Government under section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1955 for recovery of unpaid wages. After conciliation failed, the West Bengal Government referred the dispute to the First Labour Court under section 17(2). The employer contested the reference, claiming only the Maharashtra Government could refer the matter because the company's registered office is in Bombay. The Supreme Court held that, per Rule 36 of the Rules made under the Act, the application must be made to the State Government where the employee’s central or branch office is situated, and that same State Government is the only one empowered to refer the dispute to a Labour Court. Consequently, the West Bengal Government was competent to make the reference, the High Court’s decision was set aside, and the employer’s writ petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the application under s.17(1) of the Working Journalists Act must be made to the State Government where the employee’s branch or central office is located.
Whether the State Government that receives the application is the only authority competent to refer the dispute to a Labour Court under s.17(2).
Whether the West Bengal Government had jurisdiction to refer the dispute despite the employer’s registered office being in another State.

Legislation cited

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Rules made under the Working Journalists Acts. Rule 36
Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955s. 17(1), s. 17(2), s. 17(3)

Subjects

Labour LawWorking Journalists ActJurisdictionState Government referenceUnpaid wagesRule 36Industrial dispute

Judgment

SAMARJIT GHOSH A
v.
BENNETI COLEMAN & COMPANY AND ANOTHER

JUNE 29, 1987

[R.S. PATHAK, CJ! AND V. KHALID, J.] B

Labour Law: Working Journalists and Other Newspaper
Employees' (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act.
1955: Sub-ss. ( 1) and (2) of s. 17 read with r. 36 of the Rules framed
thereunder-Dispute with regard to unpaid dues between an employee
and his employer-company which has offices at places falling in diffe- C
rent States-The State Government competent to make a reference to the
Labour Court under sub-s. (2) of s. 17.

The appellant, a working journalist who was appointed on
/November, 1961 as a Staff Correspondent in the Calcutta Office of the
respondent-company while working as such at Calcutta, applied on 29 D
April, 1975 to the Government of West Bengal under sub-s. (1) of s. 17
of the Working Journalists and Newspaper Employees (Conditions of
Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 for recovery of the
unpaid portion of his wage$ relating to the period April 1968 to
February 1973. While the conciliation proceedings were on, he was
promoted and transferred to Pone on 16 February, 1976. The Concilia· E
tion omcer reported the failure of the proceedings before him on 16
November, 1976 and the Government of West Bengal made a reference
under sub-s. (2) of s. 17 of the Act to the First Labour Court, West
Bengal on 23 August, 1977 for the adjudication of the dispute between
the parties. The preliminary objection raised by the respondent-
company that the Government of West Bengal was not competent to F
make the reference was rejected by the Labour Court. The respondent-
company's writ petition challenging the order of the Labour Court was
allowed by a Single Judge whose decision was affirmed in appeal by the
Division Bench of the High Court.

Allowing the appeal by special leave and dismissing the writ peti· G
tion of the respondent-comp11ny, this Court.

HELD: (i) Sub-s. (l) of s. 17 of the Act requires that an appUcation
by the newspaper-employee complaining that an amount due to him has
remained unpaid by the employer should be made to the State Govern-
ment. Which is the State Government to which such application lies b H

475
476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 3.S.C.R.

A indicated by r. 36 of the Rules made under the Act and that rule pro- }-.
vides that an application under s. 17 of the Act shall be made to the
Government of the State where the central office or the branch office of
the newspaper establishment in which the newspaper employee is emp-
loyed is situated. It is the location of the central office or the branch
office in which the newspaper employee is employed which determines
B which State Government it will be. The rule works in favour of the
convenience of the newspaper employee. [478C-E] --4
(ii) Sub-s. (2) of s. 17 provides that if any question arises as to the
amount due under the Act to a newspaper employee from his employer,
the State Government may refer the question to any Labour Court,
C constituted by It under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any
corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial
disputes_in force in the State. If a question arises as to the amount due,
it is a question which arises on the application made by the newspaper
employee, and the application having been made before the appropriate
State Government, it is that State Government which will call for an
D adjudication of the dispute by referring the question to a Labour Court.
The State Government before whom the application for recovery is
made is the State Government which will refer the question as to the
amount due to a Labour Court. [478F-G; 479C-D]

In this case, the appellant was employed at the Calcutta branch of
E the respondent-company. He made the application to the Labour
Department of the Government of West Bengal for recovery of the
unpaid portion of his wages. When the question arose as to the amount --'· ._
due to the appellant, the Government of West Bengal made the refer-
ence for adjudication to the First Labour Court, West Bengal. Upon the
construction of sub·s. (2) of s. 17 as indicated at (ii) above, it is beyond ~
F dispute that the Government of West Bengal is competent to make the
reference. The High Court erred in holding that the reference was
without jurisdiction and that it was the State of Maharashtra which was
competent to make the reference. [479E-G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2794
G of 1986.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18. I. 1985 of the Calcutta
High Court in E.M.A. T. No. 19 of 1983.
Appellant in person.
G.B. Pai, P.R. Seetharaman and Ms. Dcepa Chhabra for the
H Respondents.
S. GHOSH v. BENNETI COLEMAN (PATHAK. CJ!.) 477

~ The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A

PATHAK, CJ. This appeal is directed against the judgment and
order of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court affirming on
appeal the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the High
Court declaring that the reference made by the Government of West
Bengal in the dispute raised by the appellant is incompetent and B
.~ invalid .

The appellant is a working journalist employed by the respon-
......-
dents, Messrs. Bennett Coleman and Company Limited. The registered

- office of the company is at Bombay and its press is located in Calcutta.
The sales office of the company is situated in Calcutta. On 1 Novem- c
ber, 1961 the appellant was appointed a staff correspondent in the
Calcutta office of the company. The letter of appointment dated 9
>- November, 1961 was issued by the company from its registered office
at Bombay. Subsequently, the appellant was promoted to the post of
Industrial Correspondent, Pune and was transferred from Calcutta to
Pune from 16 February, 1976. Upon transfer to Pune the appellant D
), received his remuneration and allowances from the Pune office of the
company, and he was under the direct control and supervision of the
registered office of the company situated in Bombay.

While the appellant was in Calcutta and before his transfer on
promotion to Pune the appellant applied to the Labour Department. E
Government of West Bengal on 29 April, 1975 under sub-s. ( 1) of s. 17
- _:.. of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Condi-
tions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Act") for recovery of the unpaid portion of his
-( wages relating to the period April, 1968 to February, 1973 from the
employer company. On 14 May, 1975 the Government of West Bengal F
initiated conciliation proceedings. The employer company parti-
cipated in the conciliation proceedings and a joint conciliation meeting
was held before the Conciliation Officer, Calcutta. The appellant was
transferred to Pune while the report of the conciliation proceedings
was still awaited. On 16 November, 1976 the Conciliation Officer re-
ported failure of the conciliation proceedings and recommended that G
-;- the dispute be referred to the Labour Court under subs. (2) of s. 17 of
the Act. Acoordingty, the Government of West Bengal made a refer-
ence on 23 August, 1977 to the First Labour Court, West Bengal for
' the adjudication of the dispute between the parties. An objection was
raised by the employer company before the First Labour Court that
the reference was incompetent as the Government of West Bengal had H
478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 3.S.C.R.

A no power to make the reference. On 11 July, 1980 the First Labour ).
Court rejected the objection. The order was challenged by the emp-
layer company by a writ petition filed in the High Court. By his judg-
ment and order dated 5 August. 1982, the learned Single Judge held
that the reference was incompetent. That view was affirmed by a Divi-
sion Bench of the High Court in appeal. And now this appeal by
B special leave.
--4
The question whether the Government of West Bengal was em-
powered to make a reference of the dispute between the appellant and ·~
the employer company must be determined by the provisions of the
Act in their application to the facts of this case. Section 17 of the Act
makes provision for the recovery of money due to a newspaper emp-
c loyee from his employer. Sub-s. ( 1) requires that an application by the
newspaper employee complaining that an amount due to him has re-
mained unpaid by the employer should be made to the State Govern- -.\
ment, and provides that if the State Government is satisfied that any
amount is so due it is empowered to issue a certificate for that amount
D to the Collector, and thereupon the Collector must proceed to recover
that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. Which is
the State Government to which such application lies is indicated by '1
Rule 36 of the Rules made under the Act. Rule 36 provides that an
application under s. 17 of the Act shall be made to the Government of
the State where the Central Office or the Branch Office of the news-
E paper establishment in which the newspaper employee is employed is
situated. It is the location of the Central Office or the Branch Office in
which the newspaper employee is employed which determines which
State Government it will be. The Rule works in favour of the conveni'
ence of the newspaper employees.
.--
~
F Sub-sections (2) and (3) of s. 17 provide:

"(2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this
Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State
Government may, on its own motion or upon application
made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court con-
G stituted by it under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of
1947) or under any corresponding law relating to investiga- ~
tion 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 question s.; referred were a
matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under
H that Act or law.
S. GHOSH v. BENNETT COLEMAN [PATHAK. CJI.J 479

(3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded
A
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 ( !). "

When all the provisions of s. 17 are considered together it is
apparent that they constitute a single scheme. In simple terms the B
~ scheme is this. A newspaper employee, who claims that an amount due
to him has not been paid by his employer, can apply to the State
Government for recovery of the amount. If no dispute arises as to the
t~ amount due the Collector will recover the amount from the employer
and pay it over to the newspaper employee. If a question arises as to
the amount due, it is a question which arises on the application made
by the newspaper employee, and the application having been made
c
before the appropriate State Government it is that State Government
which will call for an adjudication of the dispute by referring the
question to a Labour Court. When the Labour Court has decided the
question, it will forward its decision to the State Government which
made the reference, and thereafter the State Government will direct D
that recovery proceedings shall be taken. In other words the State
)' Government before whom the application for recovery is made is the
State Government which will refer the question as to the amount due
to a Labour Court, and the Labour Court upon reaching its decision
will forward the decision to the State Government, which will then
direct recovery of the amount. E

.- ~. Turning to the facts of the present case, it is clear that the appli-
cation under sub-s. (1) of s. 17 was made on 29 April, 1975 when the
appellant was employed at the Calcutta Branch of the employer
company. He made the application to the Labour Department of the
Government of West Bengal for recovery of the unpaid portion of his F
wages. When the question arose as to the amount due to the appellant,
the Government of West Bengal made the reference for adjudication
to the First Labour Court, West Bengal. Upon the construction of
sub-s. (2) of s. 17 which has found favour with us, it is beyond dispute,
we think, that the Government of West Bengal is competent to make
the reference. In our opinion the High Court erred in holding that the G
-)- reference was without jurisdiction and that it was the State of
Maharashtra which was competent to make the reference. The appli-
cation for recovery was rightly made by the appellant before the
Government of West Bengal because he was then employed by the
Branch Office of the employer company, Calcutta. Once we hold that
the application was rightly made before the Government of West H
480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 3.S.C.R.

A Bengal, the further conclusion must necessarily follow that it was the
Government of West Bengal which possessed the power to refer the
question for adjudication. It seems to us that the High Court omitted
to appreciate the inter-relationship between the different provisions of
s. 17 and the fact that if the proceeding under sub-s. (1) of s. 17 was
commenced rightly before a State Government it was that State
B Government alone which should make a reference to a Labour Court
for adjudication. _..

A number of cases have been placed before us, but we do not
consider it necessary to refer to them having regard to the view taken
by us upon a plain analysis of the statutory provisions.
c
We may note that the fundamental question before us is whether
the Government of West Bengal was competent to make the refer-
ence. We do not consider it appropriate to decide any other questions
arising upon the reference since the reference must, pursuant to this
judgment, be considered to be pending still and those questions can be
D raised there. Our attention has been drawn by learned counsel for the
employer company to an award of the Labour Court of West Bengal
where, it is said, the question covered by the impugned reference has
already been concluded on its merits. That is a submission which is
open to the employer company during the proceedings before the
Labour Court upon the impugned reference. We are concerned with a
E limited point and we need go no further.

In the result the appeal is allowed, the judgment and order dated
18 January, 1985 of the Division Bench of the High Court and the
judgment and order dated 5 October, 1982 of the learned Single Judge
of the High Court are set aside and the writ petition filed by the
F employer company is dismissed. The Labour Court will now proceed
to dispose of the reference expeditiously. The appellant is entitled to
his costs of this appeal and of the entire proceedings before the High
Court.

P.S.S. Appeal allowed.

1.-