Delhi District Court
Chandra Prakash Pandey vs M/S Nns Online P Ltd on 12 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT-01:
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT: NEW DELHI
Presided Over by: Ms. Pooja Aggarwal, DHJS
LIR No. 1260/2019
CNR No. DLCT13-001813-2019
In the matter of:
Mr. Chandra Prakash Pandey
S/o Sh. Late Sh. Satya Nath Pandey,
R/o 65-D, DDA Flat, First Floor,
Pandav Nagar, Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008.
Mobile No.: 9013121141 .....Claimant
VERSUS
M/s NNS Online Pvt. Ltd. (Holding Company) & Ors.
25/10, Meri Dilli House, East Punjabi Bagh,
New Delhi-110026. .....Management
Date of Receipt of Reference : 02.04.2019
Date of Award : 12.02.2025
AWARD
1. The claimant Chandra Prakash Pandey has filed the present
application seeking directions against the management to pay
the dues as per the Majithia Board recommendations from
01.01.2006 till 01.07.2018 i.e. a total of ₹84,97,158.76
towards arrears along with interest @ 18% from the date of
entitlement till realization.
LIR No. 1260/2019 Digitally signed
by POOJA Page no. 1 of 43
AGGARWAL
POOJA
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12
16:06:38
+0530
Brief background:-
2. In 1955, the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper
Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as the "Working
Journalists Act") was enacted by the Government of India to
regulate the conditions of service of Working Journalists and
in 1974, it was amended for other Newspaper Employees
employed in newspaper establishments1.
3. Various Wage Boards were constituted by the Central
Government under Section 9 and 13C of the Working
Journalists Act from time to time including on 24.05.2007 for
fixing and revising the rates of wages of (i) working
journalists and (ii) non-journalist newspaper employees
initially under the Chairmanship of Justice (Retd.) Narayana
Kurup and after his resignation effective from 31.07.2008,
under the Chairmanship of Justice (Retd.) Gurbax Rai
Majithia who headed both Wage Boards as their common
Chairman, w.e.f. 04.03.20092.
4. During this time, a notification SO. 2524 (E). was issued by
the Central Government on 24.10.2008, in exercise of its
powers under Section 13A(1) of the Working Journalists Act,
thereby fixing the interim rates of wages in respect of the
working journalists @ 30 % of the basic wage, with the
interim wages being payable w.e.f. 08.01.2008.
1Ref: ABP Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. in W.P. (C ) 246 / 2011 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
2Ref: ABP Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. in W.P. (C ) 246 / 2011 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
Digitally
signed by
LIR No. 1260/2019 POOJA
POOJA
AGGARWAL
Page no. 2 of 43
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12
16:06:49
+0530
5. The Majithia Wage Board submitted its recommendations on
31.12.2010 which were accepted by the Central Government
on 31.12.2010 and notified on 11.11.20113.
6. The notification dated 11.11.2011 issued by the Central
Government accepting the recommendations made by Justice
Majithia Wage Board was challenged in ABP Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
vs. Union of India & Ors. in W.P. (C) 246 / 2011 and other
Writ Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India wherein vide order dated
07.02.2014, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as
under:
"71) Accordingly, we hold that the recommendations of the Wage
Boards are valid in law, based on genuine and acceptable
considerations and there is no valid ground for interference under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
72) Consequently, all the writ petitions are dismissed with no order
as to costs.
73) In view of our conclusion and dismissal of all the writ petitions,
the wages as revised/determined shall be payable from 11.11.2011
when the Government of India notified the recommendations of the
Majithia Wage Boards. All the arrears up to March, 2014 shall be
paid to all eligible persons in four equal installments within a
period of one year from today and continue to pay the revised
wages from April, 2014 onwards."
(Emphasis supplied)
7. Thereafter, Contempt Petition No.411 of 2017 & Ors. were
filed before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which were
disposed vide order dated 19.06.2017 in Avishek Raja & Ors.
vs. Sanjay Gupta, holding -
"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 of 2011. The Award, therefore, has to be implemented in
full."
(Emphasis supplied)
3Published by the Ministry of Labour & Employment, Govt. of India vide S.O.2532(E) dated 11.11.2011.
LIR No. 1260/2019 Digitally
Page no. 3 of 43
signed by
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12
16:06:56
+0530
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also held therein that:
"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, we direct that henceforth all complaints with regard to
non-implementation of the Majithia Wage Board Award or
otherwise be dealt with in terms of the mechanism provided under
Section 17 of the Act. It would be more appropriate to resolve
such complaints and grievances by resort to the enforcement and
remedial machinery provided under the Act rather than by any
future approaches to the Courts in exercise of the contempt
jurisdiction of the Courts or otherwise."
(Emphasis supplied)
9. For the sake of convenience, Section 17 of the Working
Journalists Act, is reproduced as under:
"17. Recovery of money due from an employer.--
(1)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 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 shall issue a certificate for that amount to the
Collector, 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 Government
may, on its own motion or upon application made 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 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)."
10. In the present case, a reference order, vide F. No.
F-24(93)/300/WJA/JLC/WD/2018/1265 dated 13.08.2019 was
LIR No. 1260/2019 Digitally Page no. 4 of 43
signed by
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12
16:07:05
+0530
received from the then Joint Labour Commissioner (West
District), Government of NCT of Delhi regarding a dispute
between Sh. Chandra Prakash Pandey s/o late Sh. Satya Nath
Pandey (hereinafter referred to as 'claimant') and the
management of (1.) Sh. Rajesh Gupta S/o Sh. Kesar Singh
Gupta, M.D. & Editor M/s NNS Online Pvt. Ltd., (Holding
company)., Meri Delhi House, 25.10, East Punjabi Bagh, New
Delhi-110026 (a) M/s Meri Delhi Events Pvt. Ltd., 39/35,
West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026 (b) GMA Health
Products Pvt. Ltd. 39/35, West Punjabi Bagh, New
Delhi-110026 (c) A & G Commercial Kitchen Equipment Pvt.
Ltd. 39/35, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026 (d) Kesari
prints, Rama Road, Industrial Area, New Delhi (2.) Sh.
Akshay Gupta S/o Rajesh Gupta M/s NNS Online Pvt. Ltd.,
NNS Media Group, NNS Events and Exhibition Pvt. Ltd.,
Meri Delhi House, 25/10, East Punjabi Bagh, New
Delhi-110026 (hereinafter referred to as 'management') under
Section 17(1) of the Working Journalist and Other Newspaper
Employees (Condition of Service and Miscellaneous
Provisions) Act, 1955 with regard to 'amount due' arising out
of implementation of recommendations of "Majithia Wage
Board" which was referred by the then Joint Labour
Commissioner under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 deeming it to be a dispute under Section
17(2) of Working Journalist Act to be read with Working
Journalist and Other Newspaper Employees (Condition of
Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Rules, 1957, with the
following terms of reference:-
(i) Whether employee - employer relationship exists
Digitally
signed by
LIR No. 1260/2019 POOJA
POOJA
AGGARWAL Page no. 5 of 43
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12
16:07:14
+0530
between the claimant Sh. Chandra Prakash Pandey
S/o Late Sh. Satya Nath Pandey, (Age-44 years),
Mobile No. 9013121141) and the respondents/
managements?
(ii) And if so, claimant Sh. Chandra Prakash Pandey
S/o Late Sh. Satya Nath Pandey is entitled to
difference of arrears of wages amounting
Rs.84,97,198.76 for the period from 01.01.2006 to
01.07.2018 as per Mejithia wage board
recommendation under working journalist and other
newspaper Employees (condition of service and
miscellaneous provisions) Act 1955, and if so, what
directions are necessary in this regard?"
11.A corrigendum dated 13.08.2019 was later received from the
then Joint Labour Commissioner (West District), Labour
Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi clarifying the office
address of the authority issuing the reference order dated
18.03.2019.
12. Thereafter, the claimant filed the present application under
Section 17 (2) of the Working Journalists Act seeking issuance
of recovery certificate against his statutory dues.
Facts as per the application
13. Briefly stated, the claimant has asserted that the management
is a newspaper establishment and he was working with them
as a News Coordinator since 01.01.2006 to 30.06.2016.
14. It has also been asserted that the claimant/his post were
covered under Group-2 Schedule IA of the Majithia Wage
Board and the newspaper establishment category was Group-
V as per the Majithia Wage Board recommendations.
Digitally
LIR No. 1260/2019 signed by
POOJA
Page no. 6 of 43
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12
16:07:24
+0530
15. It has been further asserted that the basic work of the claimant
was to edit the news in all respects and that the nature of the
work was manual and technical in nature and, therefore, he
was a workman under Section 2(s) and 25F of Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 and Section 3 of the Working Journalists
Act.
16. The claimant claims ₹ 84,97,158.76, including an amount of
₹ 79,17,840.25 towards arrear for the period 01.01.2006 to
01.07.2018 and an amount of ₹ 5,79,358.31 towards IR for
the period January 2008 to November 2011, excluding the
minimum wage amount. The claimant has also asserted that
the management was liable to pay interest @ 18 % from the
date of entitlement to the period of realization, for withholding
his benefits.
17. It has been further asserted that in December 2013, the
services of the claimant were forcibly terminated by the
management without any notice or prior information and
when his salary was not credited, he approached Mr. Rajesh
Gupta, Managing Director, who obtained his resignation
forcibly under threat of dismissal and misleading him assuring
him that he will continue to work as a News Coordinator life
long.
18. It has also been asserted that the claimant was working with
the newspaper establishment as even in the resignation letter,
full and final payment was not mentioned. It has been further
stated that the management had not given him the salary as
Digitally
LIR No. 1260/2019 signed by
POOJA Page no. 7 of 43
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12
16:07:33
+0530
per the Majithia Board recommendation despite several oral
requests and that as the claimant did not chose the option as
per the pre typed format on 28.11.2011, the management
started harassment, exploitation and fabricated a conspiracy,
and finally dismissed his services on 30.06.2016.
19. It has been further asserted that the management wanted to
start a fortnightly newspaper Vikas Vaibhav in the name of
claimant to counter their business rival Delhi Vaibhav which
they did, where after the management again threatened
dismissal and obtained the signature of the claimant on the
application for withdrawal of PF.
20. It has been further asserted that the management was
providing salary to the claimant in cash during this period,
they did not provide him facilities like PF & ESIC and
thereafter they started to pay the salary through cheques
issued by the management NNS Online PVT LTD., from July
2015 to June 2016 and for July 2015 (sic).
21. It has been further asserted that the salary transfer in his
salary account proved that the claimant was worker of the
management, and an agreement had been signed with Indian
Express Pvt. Ltd. for printing work. It has been further
asserted that an authority letter had been provided by the MD
of the management i.e. Sh Rajesh Gupta for appearing before
Labour Officer Sh RM Parthsarty in 2015. It has also been
asserted that in an application submitted by the managements
before the Joint Labour Commissioner, Karampura, the
LIR No. 1260/2019 Digitally
signed by
Page no. 8 of 43
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12
16:07:41
+0530
advocates of the management had accepted the claimant to be
an employee of the management.
22. It has been further asserted that the management failed to
provide the documents under Section 17A of the Working
Journalists Act, i.e. the Register of Employees, Service
Register, Leave Register, Muster Roll and information/
documents relating to implementation of Majithia Wage
Board.
23. Hence, the present application seeking directions to the
management for payment of dues, failing which, for issuance
of recovery certificate.
Facts as per written statement / reply of management
24. In their written statement/reply, the management raised
various preliminary objections including as to the application
not being maintainable as the amount alleged by the claimant
was in dispute. It has been further asserted that the claimant
was an employer himself running his own newspaper in the
name and style of 'Vikas Vaibhav'. It has also been asserted
that there was no employer and employee relationship
between the parties and that the claimant had no locus to file
the present case.
25. It has also been asserted that the application suffered from
delay, laches and acquiescence and was barred by limitation
having been filed after the prescribed period of Limitation
since the services of the claimant were allegedly terminated in
Digitally
signed by
LIR No. 1260/2019 POOJA
POOJA
AGGARWAL
Page no. 9 of 43
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12
16:07:49
+0530
December 2013, but this application was filed in April 2019,
i.e. after more than 05 years. It has been further stated that the
claimant had resigned on 01.12.2013 which he did not
challenge and has taken a false plea that the resignation was
taken under threat of dismissal from service. It has also been
asserted that the claimant ceased to be an employee of the
management after his resignation letter dated 01.12.2013. It
has been further asserted that the claimant had not approached
the court with clean hands.
26. It has been further asserted that the claimant has filed
multiple cases against the management including an
application filed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972
before the Controlling Authority, Distt. West, Delhi;
proceedings before the authority under the Minimum Wages
Act, 1948 (District West), office of the Dy Labour
Commissioner, F Block, Karampura, New Delhi-110018;
proceedings before Ld. Presiding Officer, Labour
Commissioner, Dwarka, New Delhi bearing LIR No. 2313/17
titled Mr. Chandra Prakash Vs NNS Online Pvt. Ltd. claiming
re-instatement, payment of back wages; proceedings before
Ld. Joint Labour Commissioner, West District u/s 17 (1) of
Working Journalist & Other Newspaper Employees
(Conditions of Service) & Misc. Provisions Act, 1955 with
regard to "amount due" arising out of implementation of
recommendations of "Majithia Wages Board", upon which
reference was made; and a complaint before the Office of
Joint Labour Commissioner (West), Delhi wherein a notice
dated 03.05.2019 was issued by the Labour Officer (West) to
LIR No. 1260/2019 Digitally
signed by Page no. 10 of 43
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12
16:07:58
+0530
the management no. 1 to which the management duly replied.
27. It has been further asserted that the present application,
without giving reference to the order dated 18.03.2019 passed
by the Ld Joint Labour Commissioner (West District), was
illegal and that the present application was not maintainable in
view of the proceedings pending under the Gratuity Act, 1972;
under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and before Ld.
Presiding Officer, Labour Commissioner, Dwarka, New Delhi
bearing LIR No. 2313/17 titled Mr. Chandra Prakash Vs NNS
Online Pvt. Ltd.
28. In its brief facts, the management asserted that the claimant
had joined the management no. 1 on 01.06.2009 and conveyed
to the management in October 2013 that he wanted to start his
own newspaper and he could not continue as a full time
employee also telling the management that he wished to work
as an independent agent for management no. 1 for procuring
the advertisement on commission basis. It has been further
asserted that an agreement dated 17.10.2013 in respect of the
same was signed between the claimant and management no. 1.
29. It has also been asserted that on 01.12.2013, the claimant,
voluntarily submitted his resignation letter dated 01.12.2013
which was duly accepted and after leaving employment with
the management no.1, the claimant started his own newspaper
in the name of 'Vikas Vaibhav' Hindu Pakshik (fortnightly) in
the year 2014, where he was the owner, publisher, printer and
editor. It has been further asserted that simultaneously, the
Digitally
LIR No. 1260/2019 signed by
POOJA
Page no. 11 of 43
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12
16:08:08
+0530
claimant started procuring advertisements for management no.
1 on a commission basis, for which payment was made by the
management no. 1 to the claimant from time to time.
30. It has been further asserted that after resignation from
management no. 1, in addition to running his own newspaper
in the name of Vikas Vaibhav and procuring advertisements
for management no. 1 on commission basis, the claimant also
started working with other newspaper namely "Vyapar
Bharti".
31. It has also been asserted that after submission of resignation
on 01.12.2013, the claimant withdrew his Provident Fund
account upon an application stating therein that he had
resigned from the services of management no. 1. It has been
asserted that from 01.01.2014 to April 2015, no work was
done by the claimant with management no. 1, but in May
2015, he again approached the management no.1 and
expressed his wish to procure advertisements for newspaper of
the management no 1. It has been further asserted that at this
time, the claimant was also running his own newspaper Vikas
Vaibhav and was also working for other newspaper companies
and he also did some work with respect to a directory of
Pitampura residence as per his own convenience without any
fixed working hours, for which he was paid separately.
32. It has also been asserted that though the recommendations of
Majithia Wage Board were notified on 11.11.2011, the
claimant never demanded his salary since 11.11.2011 upto
Digitally signed
LIR No. 1260/2019 POOJA
by POOJA
AGGARWAL Page no. 12 of 43
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12
16:08:15
+0530
30.06.2016 as he had ceased to be the employee of the
management no. 1 when he submitted his resignation on
01.12.2013 and thereafter, he engaged in publishing his own
newspaper Vyapar Bharti and doing other work as freelancer.
33. It has also been asserted that the Identity Card as filed was
valid only up to 31.12.2011, after which no fresh ID card was
issued to the claimant, who resigned on 01.12.2013. It has
been further asserted that the averments of the claimant as to
having remained employed with the management no.1 till
30.06.2016 and as to having been forced to submit resignation
under threat of dismissal since he demanded salary as per
Majithia Board Recommendation, were false.
34. It has also been asserted that the commission amount in
respect of the advertisements procured by the claimant on
commission basis had been paid by the management no.1 to
the claimant.
35. On merits, the management denied the contents of the
statement of claim, asserting that the recommendations of the
Majithia Wage Board were not applicable to the management
no.1 as its employees had submitted a voluntary declaration
dated 28.02.2011. It has been reiterated that the claimant was
not entitled for any wage/salary as per recommendations of
the Majithia Wage Board since he was not an employee of
management no.1 after submitting his resignation letter on
01.12.2013.
LIR No. 1260/2019 Page no. 13 of 43
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12
16:08:23
+0530
36. It has also been reiterated that the claimant had never claimed
the wages/salary as per the recommendations of the Majithia
Wage Board. It has been denied that the management stated
restricting (sic.) the signatures of the employees on pre-typed
format under threat to their jobs or started claiming that the
recommendations of the Wage Board were not applicable to it.
It has also been asserted that the declaration dated 28.11.2011
had been given by employees of management no.1 without
any threat or pressure and that the employees had recorded
their voluntary statement on 19.06.2019 before the Labour
Inspector as to having given the declaration voluntarily.
37. It has been denied that the claimant worked with the
management as a newspaper coordinator from 01.01.2006 to
30.06.2006 and it has also been denied that the post
newspaper coordinator is covered and explained in group,
Schedule IA, Majithia Wage Board. It has also been denied
that the newspaper establishment category is Group V as per
the recommendation of the Majithia Wage Board. It has also
been denied that the work of the claimant was manual and
technical in nature, therefore, he is a workman as per Section
2 (s) and Section 25F of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
38. It has also been asserted that the order and judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court referred in para 6 of the application
was not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the
present case.
39. It has been further asserted that details of salary mentioned in
LIR No. 1260/2019 Page no. 14 of 43
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12
16:08:31
+0530
para no. 9 of the application and in Ex. WW1/3 was
completely baseless and that all salary paid to the claimant
was to the best of his satisfaction when he resigned on
01.12.2013. The liability of the management to pay the
amount as mentioned in para 17 of the application and/or any
interest thereupon, much less 18% per annum has been
denied. The management did not deny that the claimant had
not chosen to give a voluntary declaration on 28.11.2011.
40. It has been further stated that the claimant had concocted a
story alleging that he had been forced to resign in December
2013, and once he had already resigned on 01.12.2013, there
was no question of dismissing him on 30.06.2016.
41. It has been further asserted that there was no reason for the
management no.1 to start a newspaper in the name of the
claimant, and if it was interested to start a new newspaper, it
would have started the same in its own name and not in the
name of the claimant and even as per the newspaper and
Register of Newspaper for India (RNI), the claimant was the
printer, publisher and editor of the said newspaper.
42. It has also been reiterated that there was no question of
payment of salary to the claimant after December 2013 as he
ceased to be an employee of management no.1 after December
2013 and the amount paid thereafter, was on account of
commission for promoting advertisement for management
no.1. It has been further stated that the claimant was working
for management no.1 to promote advertisement and to do
LIR No. 1260/2019 Digitally
signed by
Page no. 15 of 43
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12
16:08:41
+0530
small miscellaneous work with no fixed hours. It has been
further asserted that as the claimant was doing some
miscellaneous work of the management no.1, the management
no.1 had issued an authority letter to the extent of appearing
before the Labour Commissioner, but he was not an employee
of the management no.1 after December 2013.
43. Other averments as made in the application, have been denied
on merits and dismissal of the application with exemplary cost
has been sought by the management.
Facts as per the replication
44. The claimant filed an unsigned replication on 30.07.2019.
Issues
45. After completion of pleadings, the following issues were
framed by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 23.08.2019:
1. Whether the present case is maintainable in view of
the order dated 20.03.2019 passed by the Joint
Labour Commissioner (West) Delhi whereby a
reference has already been made under section 17
(1) of the Working Journalist and Other Newspaper
Employees (Conditions of Services) and Misc.
Provisions Act, 1955? OPW
2. Whether the present case is maintainable because of
claimant was himself an employer and running his
own newspaper in the name and style of "Vikas
Vaibhav"? OPW
3. Whether the management no.2 to 3 are necessary
parties to the present case? OPW
4. Whether there exists any employer and employee
relationship between the parties herein? OPW
5. Whether the present case is barred by limitation and
suffered from delay, laches and acquiescence? OPM
6. Whether the claimant has voluntarily resigned from
LIR No. 1260/2019 Digitally Page no. 16 of 43
signed by
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12
16:08:51
+0530
the management no.1 under threat and coercion vide
his resignation letter dated 01.12.2013? OPW
7. Whether the present case is maintainable in view of
the other legal proceedings filed by the claimant as
mentioned in para 10(i) to (v) of the written
statement? OPW
8. As per terms of reference no.1 and 2. OPW
9. Relief.
46. Thereafter, the claimant filed an application u/s 11 (3) (b) of
the Industrial Disputes Act on 03.10.2019 for production of
records in possession of the management, which was allowed
by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 26.11.2019. The
management was directed to file the documents as per the
application since 01.01.2006 to 01.07.2018 as per the
recommendations of the Majithia Wage Board.
47. Thereafter to prove his case, the claimant examined himself
and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit attested on
24.11.2020 i.e. Ex.WW1/A on 22.02.2021. He also relied
upon the following documents:
S.No. Description of document (s) Exhibit/Mark
1. Copy of ESIC form Ex.WW1/1
2. Cop of Identity Card Ex. WW1/2
3. Copy of Calculation Chart Ex. WW1/3
4. Copy of Passbook of Syndicate Ex. WW1/4
Bank.
5. Copy of Passbook of State Bank of Ex. WW1/5
India.
6. Copy of authority letter dated Ex. WW1/6
03.12.2015
7. Copy of application before Ex. WW1/7
Authority under Payment of
Gratuity Act
LIR No. 1260/2019 Digitally
Page no. 17 of 43
signed by
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12
16:09:02
+0530
8. Copy of appeal before the Ex. WW1/8
Appellate Authority under
Payment of Gratuity Act
9. Copy of pre-pond (sic.) notice Ex. WW1/9
dated 01.03.2019
10. Copy of Gazette of India dated Mark X1
11.11.2011.
11. Copy of RNI Registration of Mark X2
Vyapar Kesari.
12. Copy of cheque book. Mark X3
13. Copy of demand notice Mark X4
14. Copy of proceeding before Mark X5
Conciliation Officer.
48. He was duly cross-examined on behalf of the management
during the course of which the documents i.e. copy of
application of claim of gratuity i.e. Ex. WW1/M1, resignation
letter i.e. Ex. WW1/M2, Offer letter dated 05.02.2013 i.e. Ex.
WW1/M3, resignation letter of Priyanka Tanwar i.e. Ex.
WW1/M4 and Experience Certificate of Ms Priyanka Tanwar
i.e. Ex. WW1/M5 were put to him.
49. During the course of his cross-examination, the claimant filed
an application under Section 11 (3) ID Act on 16.04.2021 for
summoning of witnesses. The said application was allowed by
the Ld Predecessor vide order dated 03.08.2021 but the
summoned witness Mr. Rajesh Gupta did not appear and
notice under Order XVI Rule 12 CPC was directed to be
issued against him by the Ld. Predecessor. The management
challenged the said order of the Ld. Predecessor before the
Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide CM(M) 699/2021 which was
dismissed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 08.10.2021.
Digitally
LIR No. 1260/2019 signed by
POOJA
Page no. 18 of 43
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12
16:09:09
+0530
50. Thereafter, the claimant filed an application under Order XII
Rule 6 CPC seeking award on admission which was decided
by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 25.03.2022 observing
that no controversy remained to be adjudicated on the issue of
employee employer relationship between the management and
workman but there was no unequivocal and unambiguous
admission on the part of management regarding arrears to the
tune of ₹84,97,158.76 which was to be proved by leading
evidence by both the parties and it was made clear that no
evidence is required to be led on the issue of employer
employee relationship.
51. The management approached the Hon'ble Delhi High Court
vide W.P.(C) 7926/2022 challenging order dated 25.03.2022
passed by the Ld Predecessor.
52. In the meanwhile, on 07.05.2022, the cross-examination of
the claimant was concluded and the management chose not to
lead any evidence upon which the claimant as well as the
management evidence was closed.
53. Thereafter, the W.P. (C) 7926/2022 preferred by the
management challenging the order on the application under
Order XII Rule 6 CPC was disposed off by the Hon'ble Delhi
High Court vide its order dated 02.11.2022 wherein it held as
under:
"16. ...In the present case the petitioner-management has
challenged an order whereby the learned Labour Court has
merely partly allowed the application under Order XII Rule 6,
CPC on the point of employee-employer relationship.
LIR No. 1260/2019 Digitally Page no. 19 of 43
signed by
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12
16:09:17
+0530
17. Though, the W. P. (C) No. 2726 of 2020 challenging the
award dated 20.02.2020 passed in LIR No. 1313/2017 has been
allowed. However, in that case, it has inter alia been held that
respondent had duly resigned from the service and same was
duly accepted. The contention of the respondent that the
resignation was taken forcibly and he was illegally terminated
was rejected by this Court. It is a matter of record that it's an
admitted case of the petitioner-management that the respondent
worked with them from 01.08.2009 till 01.12.2013 i.e. the date
of resignation. However, the plea of the respondent is that he
remained in employment from 01.01.2006 to 30.06.2016. The
issue that whether the respondent was a 'workman' as per
definition of the I.D. Act or a 'working journalist' as per W.J.
Act is yet to be decided. However, the finding of the learned
Labour Court that the petitioner-management itself has admitted
that the respondent resigned from the service on 01.12.2013 and
therefore he remained employed with them cannot be faulted.
Even otherwise the learned Labour Court has left open the
question of entitlement of the respondent open.
18. Thus, the present writ petition is disposed of with the
following direction:
(1) The question that whether the respondent is a
'workman' as per the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or a
'working journalist' as per W. J. Act is left open to be
decided.
54. On 21.12.2022, the claimant made submissions to the effect
that the issue of his status as to whether he was covered under
the definition of Working Journalist or Workman was still
open to be decided by the Court, and he was allowed by the
Ld Predecessor to lead additional evidence whereafter, on
17.03.2023, the claimant tendered his additional evidence
affidavit attested on 11.01.2023 i.e. Ex. WW1/A. He also
relied upon the following documents-
S.No. Description of document (s) Exhibit/Mark
1. Copy of wage details for April- Ex.WW1/A
December, 2013 of NNS
Online Pvt. Ltd.
2. Reply of CPIO ESIC. Ex.WW1/B
3. Reply to RTI, labour Ex.WW1/C
LIR No. 1260/2019 Digitally Page no. 20 of 43
signed by
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12
16:09:26
+0530
Department and undertaking
20 (j) of Majithia
Recommendation.
4. Undertaking 20(j) Majithia Ex.WW1/D
recommendation of 8
employees of NNS Online Pvt.
Ltd. on 01.09.2013.
5. Reply of CPIO, ESI. Ex.WW1/E
6. True salary/wage staff Ex.WW1/F
allowance and deduction
details of NNS Online Pvt.
Ltd.
7. True copy of application for Ex.WW1/G
extension.
8. True copies of application for Ex.WW1/H
extension posting.
9. True copy of application for Ex.WW1/I
extension posting. (endorsed as Ex.
WW1/G)
10. True copy of e-mail of Ex.WW1/J
27.08.2015 and 30.10.2015.
11. Copy of agreement. Ex.WW1/K
12. True copies of quasi judicial Ex.WW1/L
proceedings dated 03.12.2015
and 18.04.2016.
13. True copies of letters of Ex.WW1/M
authorisation.
14. Copy of notice issued by Ex. WW1/N
Inspector under the Working
Journalists Act
He was duly cross-examined on behalf of the management on
17.03.2023 and 12.04.2023.
55. In the meanwhile, the claimant filed another application on
12.04.2023 for summoning of witness which was allowed by
the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 22.05.2023 and Mr.
LIR No. 1260/2019 Digitally
Page no. 21 of 43
signed by
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12
16:09:36
+0530
Rajesh Gupta was directed to be summoned for the next date.
The management approached the Hon'ble Delhi High Court
vide CM(M) 985/2023 wherein on 02.06.2023, the
management agreed to file affidavit of admission / denial of
documents pertaining to the period from 01.06.2009 to
31.12.2013 and it was directed that the competent witness will
also file his evidence by way of affidavit in support of the
documents, the respondent would be entitled to cross-examine
the witness and the witness shall file the special power of
attorney / power of attorney executed by the competent
authority of the petitioner / management and the order to the
extent of summoning Mr. Rajesh Gupta was set aside by the
Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
56. On 03.07.2023, the management filed its evidence affidavit
and affidavit of admission / denial and also filed an
application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. MW1 Sh. Raghav
Nand Tewari was examined wherein he tendered his evidence
by way affidavit i.e. Ex. MW1/A and relied upon documents
viz. copy of board resolution dated 13.06.2023 i.e. Ex.
MW1/1 and copy of Special Power of Attorney dated
13.06.2023 i.e. Ex. MW1/2. He was partly cross-examined on
the same day and his further cross-examination was deferred.
57. In the meanwhile, the claimant filed an application on
17.08.2023 for filing additional documents which was allowed
by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated on 04.10.2023 and on
06.12.2023, the claimant filed his additional affidavit
tendering it as Ex. WW1/A-1 (endorsed as Ex. WW/1A). He
Digitally
LIR No. 1260/2019 signed by
POOJA Page no. 22 of 43
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12
16:09:47
+0530
also relied upon the following documents-
S.No. Description of document (s) Exhibit/Mark
1. Copy of RTI reply dated Mark X-1.
03.08.2023.
2. Copy of C-6 register of Mark X-2.
employee.
3. Copy of Form-1 of ESIC. Mark X-3.
4. Copy of Form-1 of National Mark X-4.
News Service.
5. Notification of Ministry of Mark X-5
Labour and Employment.
6. Copy of PF slip Mark X-6.
He was not cross-examined by the management despite
opportunity.
58. On 23.02.2024, AR for management withdrew his application
under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and the claimant stated that he
did not wish to cross-examine MW1 further in view of the
additional evidence tendered by him on 06.12.2023.
59. Final arguments were then advanced on behalf of both the
parties and various written clarifications / judgments were
filed by them.
60. Vide order dated 08.08.2024, upon the agreement of the
claimant as well as the Ld AR of the management, it was
directed that the adjudication in this case shall be confined to
the issue no.8 and 9 as framed as well as the question as
directed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated
02.11.2022, as the remaining issues as framed on 23.08.2019
Digitally
LIR No. 1260/2019 signed by Page no. 23 of 43
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12
16:09:56
+0530
were beyond the terms of reference.
61. The arguments as advanced have been carefully considered
along with the evidence on record.
62. As already noted, the reference order in the present case has
been received with the following terms of reference:-
(i) Whether employee - employer relationship exists
between the claimant Sh. Chandra Prakash Pandey S/o
Late Sh. Satya Nath Pandey, (Age-44 years), Mobile No.
9013121141) and the respondents/ managements?
(ii) And if so, claimant Sh. Chandra Prakash Pandey S/o
Late Sh. Satya Nath Pandey is entitled to difference of
arrears of wages amounting Rs.84,97,198.76 for the
period from 01.01.2006 to 01.07.2018 as per Mejithia
wage board recommendation under Working Journalist
And Other Newspaper Employees (Condition Of Service
And Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955, and if so, what
directions are necessary in this regard?"
63. As noted earlier, vide order dated 25.03.2022, the Ld.
Predecessor has already decided that there was no controversy
which remained to be adjudicated on the issue of employer-
employee relationship between the management and the
claimant. The said order of the Ld. Predecessor has been
upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P. (C)
7926/2022 on 02.11.2022 wherein it has been observed that:
"However, the finding of the learned Labour Court that the
petitioner- management itself has admitted that the respondent
resigned from the service on 01.12.2013 and therefore he
remained employed with them cannot be faulted."
(Emphasis supplied)
64. Nothing has been brought on record to indicate that the
aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has been set
LIR No. 1260/2019 Digitally
signed by
POOJA
Page no. 24 of 43
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12
16:10:06
+0530
aside or modified by any higher forum till date and even on
17.12.2024, the claimant stated that he had not filed any LPA
in respect of the W.P. (C) 7926/2022 and the AR for the
management also stated that the management had also not
approached any higher forum in respect of the said W.P. (C)
7926/2022. That being so, the said finding of the Hon'ble
Delhi High Court has attained finality and no further finding is
required in respect of point (a) of reference.
65. At this stage, it is also duly noted that though the factum of
employment of the claimant with the management is not in
dispute, the period thereof is disputed with the claimant
asserting that he was the employee of the management since
01.01.2006 to 30.06.2016 while the management has
controverted the same by asserting that the claimant joined the
management on 01.06.2009 and resigned on 01.12.2013
which resignation letter was accepted.
66. Hence, while the period of employment of the claimant with
the management w.e.f. 01.06.2009 till 01.12.2013 is not in
dispute, it was still for the claimant to prove his employment
with the management w.e.f. 01.01.2006 till 31.05.2009 as well
as from 02.12.2013 to 30.06.2016 for the purposes of the
computation of dues as per the Majithia Board
Recommendations.
67. In this respect, it is noted that the claimant has failed to bring
on record any positive evidence to prove his employment with
the management w.e.f. 01.01.2006 till 31.05.2009. In his first
Digitally
signed by
LIR No. 1260/2019 POOJA
POOJA
AGGARWAL Page no. 25 of 43
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12
16:10:16
+0530
evidence affidavit i.e. Ex WW1/A, the claimant has inter-alia
testified that he was never given appointment letter, wages
slip etc and further testified that the management started
giving salary to him in cash/ cheque mode and made payment
through cheque in July 2008, August 2008, September 2008,
October 2008, November 2008 and December 2008. He also
relied upon his passbook i.e. Ex WW1/4 and Ex WW1/5 in
respect of the same.
68. However, during his cross-examination, he admitted that the
passbooks i.e. Ex WW1/4 and Ex WW1/5 pertained to his
personal account and not his salary account. He also admitted
that the entries from July to December 2008 did not reflect as
to who had issued these cheques. He also admitted that he did
not have any other documents except the passbooks to show
that he was working with NNS Online Pvt Ltd. w.e.f.
01.01.2006 to the year 2008. That being so, there is nothing to
prove that the payments reflected in Ex WW1/4 and Ex
WW1/5 were in fact made by the management to the claimant
nor do they prove that such payment was towards the salary of
the claimant. Thus, as except self-serving oral testimony of
the claimant, no positive evidence has been led by the
claimant to prove the factum of his employment with the
management w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to 31.05.2009, due to which
the factum of his employment with the management for the
said period remains unproved and thus, the question of his
entitlement for the said period under the Majithia Board
Recommendations also does not arise.
Digitally
signed by
LIR No. 1260/2019 POOJA
POOJA
AGGARWAL
Page no. 26 of 43
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12
16:10:25
+0530
69. In as far as the factum of the employment of the claimant
with the management after 01.12.2013 till 30.06.2016 is
concerned, it is noted that the claimant has testified in his first
evidence affidavit i.e. Ex WW1/A as to the salary having been
credited into his bank account since June 2015 to June 2016,
and he has relied upon a copy of his passbook i.e. Mark X3.
However, a bare perusal of the said document Mark X3
reveals that the same is only a copy of the first page of the
passbook with no entries having been attached thereto,
including those of June 2015 to June 2016 to corroborate the
oral testimony of the claimant.
70. It is further noted that the claimant has also relied upon one
authority letter i.e. Ex. WW1/6 dated 03.12.2015 issued by
Sh. Rajesh Gupta, MD of the management as also the
application dated 12.05.2015 filed before the Controlling
Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, i.e. Ex WW1/7,
as well as the Appeal filed by the management under the
Payment of Gratuity Act, i.e. Ex WW1/8 to prove his
relationship with the management even after 2013. In his
second evidence affidavit, the claimant has relied upon the
copy of the application for extension posting dated 10.11.2015
i.e. Ex.WW1/H, copy of the application for extension posting
dated 27.02.2016 i.e. Ex.WW1/I (endorsed as Ex WW1/G),
copy of e-mail of 27.08.2015 and 30.10.2015 i.e. Ex.WW1/J,
copy of the agreement dated 01.09.2015 between Indian
Express and management NNS Online Pvt Ltd signed by the
claimant as Chief Manager i.e. Ex.WW1/K, copies of the
quasi- judicial proceedings dated 03.12.2015 and 18.04.2016
Digitally
signed by
LIR No. 1260/2019 POOJA
POOJA
AGGARWAL
Page no. 27 of 43
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12
16:10:33
+0530
i.e. Ex.WW1/L and copies of letters of authorization dated
02.03.2015, 23.12.2016 and 11.11.2016 i.e. Ex.WW1/M in
support of his claim of continued employment with the
management.
71. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the order passed by the
Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 2726/2020 dated
02.11.2022 in respect of another litigation between the same
parties, i.e. LIR No. 2313/17 pertaining to the resignation/
termination of the claimant4. The same is relevant as it also
pertained to the period of employment of the claimant with the
management. Therein, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held as
under-
"30. The challenge posed before this Court against the
judgment dated 20.02.2012 (sic) wherein the learned
Labour Court has returned the finding that the resignation
of the respondent No.2-workman was taken forcibly on
01.12.2013 and his services were terminated illegally on
30.06.2016. I consider that the findings of the learned
Labour Court is liable to be set aside as the award suffers
from inherent contradictions.
...
41. Thus, this Court considers that the finding of the learned Labour Court that the resignation was obtained forcibly is without any basis and is liable to be set aside. Furthermore, the learned Labour Court has reached to the conclusion regarding the continuation in service till 2016, only on the basis of some authority letter being executed by the Director of the petitioner-management. It is pertinent to mention here that though the respondent No.2- workman stated to have received certain amounts from the petitioner-management 2015 onwards, but did not produce any record in the evidence recording. The impugned award records that the respondent No.2-workman had deposed that he had records to prove that he had been working with the petitioner- management from 2014-16 but he has not filed the same in the judicial record. It is a settled 4"1 Whether the workman himself resigned from services of the management on 01.12.2013, voluntarily and on his own? OPM 2 Whether the services of the workman have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management w.e.f. 30.06.2016? OPW 3 Relief."
LIR No. 1260/2019 Digitally
signed by Page no. 28 of 43
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12
16:10:51
+0530
proposition that the party who wants to prove a fact is bound to bring on record the evidence. If, such evidence has not been brought on record, an adverse inference can be drawn against him.
42. This Court considers that merely on the basis of the Documents Ex. WW1/1 and Ex. WW1/2 which are an authority letter in favour of the respondent No.2-workman and an application moved by Sh. A. K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner-management respectively, it cannot be concluded that the respondent No.2-workman was in employment till 2016.
.....
44. It is also pertinent to mention here that the learned Labour Court recorded in the impugned order that admittedly, the respondent No.2- workman was having no documentary evidence to prove his employment with the petitioner-management from 01.01.2006 till 31.05.2009 and from 01.12.2013 till 30.06.2016. However, an adverse inference was drawn regarding this for non-production of the documents in pursuance to the application moved by the respondent No.2-workman under Section 11 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In absence of any positive evidence on record the issue cannot be decided merely on the basis of adverse inference.
....
46. The reference which was pending consideration before the learned Labour Court was only confined to that extent whether service of the respondent No.2-workman was terminated illegally and unjustifiably by the petitioner- management. If the respondent No.2-workman had voluntarily resigned from his service and the same was duly accepted by the petitioner-management, there is no question of illegal or unjustifiable termination of his service. In view of this finding regarding continuity of service till 30.06.2016 also becomes irrelevant.
47. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the impugned award dated 20.02.2020 is set aside."
(Emphasis supplied)
72. Hence, from the bare perusal of the above order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it transpires that vide the said order, the finding as to the resignation of the claimant having been accepted by the management, and thus, the finding of fact as to the cessation of employment of the claimant herein with the management on 01.12.2013 has already been given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. There is nothing on record LIR No. 1260/2019 Page no. 29 of 43 Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12 16:10:59 +0530 that the said order has been assailed till now and thus the said order has attained finality. That being so, the factum of the claimant having continued in the employment of the management after 01.12.2013 till 30.06.2016 cannot be adjudicated upon any further in this case based on any further evidence and consequently, with the claimant having ceased to be the employee of the management w.e.f 01.12.2013, the question of any dues being payable to him for the period after 01.12.2013 under the Majithia Board Recommendation also does not arise.
73. In so far as the admitted period of employment is concerned i.e. from 01.06.2009 to 01.12.2013, it is noted that it needs to be ascertained whether the claimant was working as a working journalist as per the Working Journalists Act. At this stage, it is also pertinent to note that vide order dated 02.11.2022 in W.P. (C) 7926/2022, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has also directed that:
"(1) The question that whether the respondent is a 'workman' as per the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or a 'working journalist' as per W.J. Act is left open to be decided."
74. In the present case, the management has vehemently argued that the claimant was working as a News-Coordinator, and the functional definition of a News-Coordinator was given in point 9 of Group 2 of Schedule I B of the Working Journalists Act as " "News-Editor" or "News-Coordinator" means a person who coordinates and supervises the work of news department and is responsible for the news content of all the editions of the newspaper." It has been argued that the job description itself stated that the nature of work of the claimant LIR No. 1260/2019 Digitally Page no. 30 of 43 signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12 16:11:07 +0530 was supervisory and in this case, the claimant was also working in the capacity of manager with hire and fire powers; and he was also drawing last drawn wages as ₹45,000/- per month as admitted by him in his cross-examination, which took him out of the purview of the Section 2(s)(iv) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
75. It is pertinent to note that by virtue of Section 3 (1) of the Working Journalists Act, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 apply to/ in relation to working journalists as they apply to/ or in relation to, workmen within the meaning of that Act.
76. In The Management of M/s Statesman Ltd., New Delhi Vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi and Ors., 11 (1975) DLT 204, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed that:
(5) The question raised is whether respondent No. 3 is a workman within the definition laid down by the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act defines workmen as any person employed in any industry to do any skilled, unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work. This expressly excludes managerial or administrative officers and naturally would not apply to literary or intellectual workers. In case Mitra Parkashan Ltd v. Brahma Dutt Vidyarthi (1956-57) 10 FJR 505, sub-editor of a story magazine was considered to be not included in the definition of workmen. The answer does not turn merely on the definition of workmen. The Working Journalists (Industrial Disputes) Act, 1 of 1955 was passed on March 12,1955. The Objects of the Act as given in the Objects and Reasons are: "One of the matters referred to the Press Commission was the settlement of disputes affecting working journalists the Press Commission examined the position in the light of judicial pronouncements and found that working journalists did not come within the scope of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Commission, however, considered it essential that they should be entitled to the benefits of the procedure for the investigation and settlement of disputes envisaged in that Act and the Bill was designed to achieve the LIR No. 1260/2019 Digitally Page no. 31 of 43 signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12 16:11:15 +0530 same object by extending the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. "The provisions of the Act have given the definition of the working journalist as employed in, or in relation to, any establishment for the production or publication of a newspaper or in, or in relation to, any news agency. Section 3 of this Act reads: "The provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, shall apply to, or in relation to, working journalists as they apply to, or in relation to workman within the meaning of that Act. This Act was repealed by The Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 45 of 1955. Section 3 of this Act has maintained the provisions of Section 3 of Act, 1 of 1955. The result is that by a fiction of law, the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act have been extended to and applied to, or in relation to the working journalists, in the same manner and to the same extent as they apply to, or in relation to, workman defined in Industrial Disputes Act." Consequently the working journalists are fully entitled to take advantage of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act like any other workman without their being labelled workman as such. The modification of the Industrial Disputes Act in its application to working journalists is indicated by Sub-section 2 of Section 3 and other provisions of the Act but subject to them the Industrial Disputes Act mutatis and mutandis applies to the working journalists. It is, therefore, not necessary to decide whether they are really workmen as such but they do rank with them for the benefits of the Act. The preliminary issue No. 1 decided by the Tribunal is, therefore, not open to challenge.
(Emphasis supplied)
77. From the aforesaid legal proposition, it is clear that the claimant under the Working Journalists Act, is not required to independently fulfill the criteria of a workman to fall within the ambit of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as the applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act to the working journalists, is by way of legal fiction, and they rank with the workmen for the benefits of the Industrial Act. The management has also failed to produce any legal proposition whereby the claimant was required to independently fulfill the criteria as laid down in Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Digitally
LIR No. 1260/2019 signed by
POOJA Page no. 32 of 43
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12
16:11:25
+0530
78. That being so, it is to be only seen whether the claimant is a working journalist within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of the Working Journalists Act i.e. whether he is a person whose principal avocation is that of a journalist and he is not employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or if he so employed in a supervisory capacity, he performs, either by the nature of the duties attached to his office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.
79. In this case, the claimant has asserted in his application that he was working as a News Coordinator and his basic work was to edit the news in all respects. He has also asserted that the nature of the work was manual and technical in nature. In his first evidence affidavit i.e. Ex WW1/A, he has reiterated the same and has also relied upon his ID card issued by the management i.e. Ex WW1/2 reflecting him to be a News- Coordinator as also the data of the insured person i.e. Ex WW1/1 which also reflects his designation as News- Coordinator.
80. The management has not controverted the form i.e. Ex WW1/1 or the ID card i.e. Ex WW1/2, nor have they pleaded much less proved, that the principal avocation of the claimant was not of a News-Coordinator during the period of employment of the claimant admitted by them i.e. 01.06.2009 to 01.12.2013.
LIR No. 1260/2019 POOJA Page no. 33 of 43 AGGARWAL Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL Date: 2025.02.12 16:11:37 +0530
81. It is pertinent to note here that in its written statement/reply, it was never the case of the management that the claimant was performing functions of a managerial or mainly of a managerial nature so as to fall within Section 2(f) (i) or (ii) of the Working Journalists Act. Though MW1 testified in his evidence affidavit in para 8 that the claimant was working in a managerial, supervisory, or administrative position with the management and drawing a salary of ₹45,000/- per month, the same is beyond pleadings of the management and cannot be looked into.
82. Further, even though during the course of cross-examination, the management elicited from the claimant that he had issued the letters i.e. Ex WW1/M3 and Ex WW1/M5 reflecting him to be a Manager, in the absence of any pleadings of the management as to the claimant working as a manager from 01.06.2009 to 1.12.2013, such admission, being beyond pleadings of the management, does not assist them.
83. Even the admission of the claimant in his cross-examination, that after 31.12.2011, he became HR- Manager, is not sufficient to conclude that he was not performing the functions of a working journalist as it was never the case of the management that after 31.12.2011, the designation or nature of work of the claimant had changed in any manner, even more so, when the claimant immediately denied such assertion during his cross-examination.
84. In as far as the argument of the management as to the nature LIR No. 1260/2019 Digitally Page no. 34 of 43 signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12 16:11:48 +0530 of work of the claimant being supervisory in nature by virtue of the functional definition of a News-Coordinator was given in point 9 of Group 2 of Schedule I B of the Working Journalists Act is concerned, it is duly noted that it was only if the claimant was employed mainly in managerial capacity or in a supervisory capacity but performing functions mainly of managerial nature, so as to fall within the purview of Section 2(f) (i) or (ii) of the Working Journalists Act would he have been excluded from its ambit. However, the management has failed to lead any positive evidence to prove that despite such supervisory nature of duties, the claimant was performing functions mainly of a managerial nature and hence, there is no evidence on record to conclude that the claimant falls within the purview of Section 2(f) (i) or (ii) of the Working Journalists Act.
85. It is also noted here that it has been vehemently argued on behalf of the management, that there was admission of the claimant as to his salary being ₹45,000/-. However, the argument as advanced is misleading since from the perusal of the entire evidence on record, it transpires that the claimant has nowhere admitted that his salary was ₹45,000/- per month from 2009 to 2013, rather, he has testified that in December 2013, his gross salary was ₹10,686/- and his last drawn salary was in the year 2016. Hence, there is no admission of the claimant during his cross-examination as to his salary being ₹45,000/- per month for the admitted period.
86. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion and evidence on Digitally LIR No. 1260/2019 signed by POOJA Page no. 35 of 43 POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12 16:12:03 +0530 record, it is held that the claimant was a working journalist under Section 2(f) of the Working Journalists Act and does not fall within the purview of Section 2(f) (i) or (ii) of the Working Journalists Act.
87. It is also pertinent to note here that with respect to the classification of the management for the purposes of gross revenue, in his first evidence affidavit i.e. Ex WW1/A, the claimant has categorically testified that the management falls under category V of the Majithia Board Award classification within the definition of gross revenue. For reasons best known to the management, they did not cross-examine the claimant to controvert the same nor led any positive evidence to the contrary, rendering such testimony as un-rebutted and un- controverted.
88. It has been argued on behalf of the management that the claim petition was not maintainable since for determination of the amount payable as per Majithia Board Recommendations, the classification of the newspaper establishment is necessary, but the claimant has not produced any document to support his claim nor led any evidence qua the same, even though the management has denied the contention of the claimant as to it being a class V newspaper establishment.
89. It is duly noted here that the denial of the management in its written statement/ reply is in the nature of evasive denial in as much as despite denying its classification as stated by the claimant, the management did not aver any facts to controvert LIR No. 1260/2019 Digitally signed by Page no. 36 of 43 POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12 16:12:11 +0530 the same nor did they aver the category in which it was covered if not category V. In these circumstances, with the management itself not having cross-examined the claimant in respect of such classification of the management as being a class V newspaper establishment nor produced any documents to controvert such testimony, no further proof, including documentary proof was warranted to be produced by the claimant. Hence, there is no merit in the argument as raised by the management which is rejected and it is held that the factum of the management falling under category V of the Majithia Board Award classification stands proved as having remained un-controverted and un-rebutted.
90. At this stage, it is also pertinent to note that vide order dated 07.02.2014, in ABP Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. in W.P. (C) 246 / 2011 and other Writ Petitions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India directed that the wages as revised/ determined shall be payable from 11.11.2011 when the Government of India notified the recommendations of the Majithia Wage Boards. In the present case, the claimant has claimed such arrears of salary and has also claimed interim wages @ 30 % of the basic wages.
91. As had already been noted, notification no. S.O. 2524 (E) which came into force on 08.01.2008, had been notified by the Central Government in the exercise of its powers under Section 13A(1) of the Working Journalists Act, and by virtue of Section 13A(3) thereof, any interim rates of wages fixed under Section 13A(1) shall remain in force until the order of LIR No. 1260/2019 Digitally signed by Page no. 37 of 43 POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12 16:12:19 +0530 the Central Government under Section 12 comes into operation. Since the orders of the Central Government under Section 12 came into operation w.e.f. 11.11.2011, the interim rates of wages fixed under Section 13A (1) also remained in force till 11.11.2011.
92. It is not the case of the management that they have made any payment to the claimant herein under the Majithia Board recommendations or even in respect of the interim wages. It is also not the case of the management that the claimant had exercised his option for retaining his existing pay scale and 'existing emoluments' within the meaning of Clause 2(j) of the Majithia Wage Board Award (also referred by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Avishek's case (supra)). That being so, no circumstances have been brought on record to negate the claim of the claimant for the amount due to him towards arrears of salary as per the Majithia Board Recommendations for the period from 11.11.2011 to 01.12.2013 as well as the interim wages for the period from 01.06.2009 to 10.11.2011.
93. In respect of the quantum of difference of arrears of wages as also the interim wages, it is duly noted that in his pleadings as well as his first evidence affidavit i.e. Ex WW1/A, the claimant has relied upon the calculation sheet Ex WW1/3, reflecting calculation of interim relief from 01.01.2008 to 10.11.2011 and difference in wages w.e.f. 11.11.11 to 01.07.2018. In the entire cross-examination of the claimant, the management has failed to controvert the said calculation sheet i.e. Ex WW1/3 nor have they produced any calculation Digitally LIR No. 1260/2019 signed by POOJA Page no. 38 of 43 POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12 16:12:27 +0530 sheet of their own to controvert the calculation shown therein, rendering such document i.e. the calculation sheet Ex WW1/3 and consequently the calculation reflected therein un-rebutted.
94. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the management, that the claimant has failed to examine the author of the calculation sheet, rendering the same as having remained unproved in view of the established principles of evidence and thus cannot be relied upon. However, the argument as raised is misplaced. It is a settled proposition of law that an objection to the admissibility of evidence whether as to inadmissibility of the document itself in evidence; or as to the mode of proof should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular, cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit.
95. Strength for this interpretation is drawn from the case of R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple And Another.2003 [8] SCC 752, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"Ordinarily, an objection to the admissibility of evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently. The objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into two classes:- (i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular of insufficient. In the first case, LIR No. 1260/2019 Digitally signed by Page no. 39 of 43 POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12 16:12:35 +0530 merely because a document has been marked as 'an exhibit', an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken when the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit. The latter proposition is a rule of fair play. The crucial test is whether an objection, if taken at the appropriate point of time, would have enabled the party tendering the evidence to cure the defect and resort to such mode of proof as would be regular. The omission to object becomes fatal because by his failure the party entitled to object allows the party tendering the evidence to act on an assumption that the opposite party is not serious about the mode of proof. On the other hand, a prompt objection does not prejudice the party tendering the evidence, for two reasons: firstly, it enables the Court to apply its mind and pronounce its decision on the question of admissibility then and there; and secondly, in the event of finding of the Court on the mode of proof sought to be adopted going against the party tendering the evidence, the opportunity of seeking indulgence of the Court for permitting a regular mode or method of proof and thereby removing the objection raised by the opposite party, is available to the party leading the evidence. Such practice and procedure is fair to both the parties. Out of the two types of objections, referred to hereinabove, in the latter case, failure to raise a prompt and timely objection amounts to waiver of the necessity for insisting on formal proof of a document, the document itself which is sought to be proved being admissible in evidence. In the first case, acquiescence would be no bar to raising the objection in a superior Court".
(Emphasis supplied)
96. In the present case, when the calculation sheet had been tendered in evidence by the claimant on 22.02.2021 as Ex. WW1/3 in the presence of the AR of the management itself, no objection as to the mode of proof of the said calculation sheet was raised on behalf of the management on that day. It was only on the next date, i.e. after the document had already Digitally LIR No. 1260/2019 signed by POOJA Page no. 40 of 43 POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12 16:12:45 +0530 been tendered in evidence that the management raised a generic objection as to the exhibition of documents on account of mode of proof. However, in view of the aforesaid legal proposition, such objection could not have been raised subsequent to the tendering of the document i.e. the calculation sheet and hence, the management cannot be permitted to raise such objection now. That being so, the fact of the non-examination of the author of the calculation sheet is not fatal and the mere absence of such examination does not render the document i.e. calculation sheet Ex WW1/3 as unproved and it can be looked into. Hence, the argument of the management being devoid of merits, is rejected.
97. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in view of the evidence as led, it is held that the claimant is entitled to a sum of ₹80,008/- towards interim relief w.e.f. 01.06.2009 to 10.11.2011 being the sum of entries reflected in the uncontroverted document i.e. Ex WW1/3 from point A to A1. The claimant is also entitled to a sum of ₹11,00,515.59/- towards difference in wages w.e.f. 11.11.2011 to 01.12.2013 being the sum of entries reflected in the uncontroverted document i.e. Ex WW1/3 from point B to B1 for the total of ₹11,80,523.59.
98. The amount calculated towards interest in the calculation sheet Ex WW1/3, cannot be awarded as neither notifications i.e. S.O. 2524(E) nor S.O. 2532(E) provide for award of interest in case of delayed payments and the present proceedings being under Section 17 (2) of the Working LIR No. 1260/2019 Digitally signed by Page no. 41 of 43 POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12 16:12:53 +0530 Journalists Act, is limited to computation of pre-existing benefits capable of being computed in terms of money and not to confer any new benefits.
99. It is also pertinent to note here that the management had raised the question of the present application being barred by Limitation as well as delay, laches and acquiescence in their written statement as well as evidence affidavit of MW1. In this respect, it is noted that no period of limitation has been prescribed either by the Majithia Board recommendations nor by the Working Journalists Act and in the absence thereof, no period of Limitation can be read into the same. Further, it is noted that the testimony of the claimant as to him having orally asked the management for the grant of the wages as per the recommendations of the Majithia Board as also for the interim wages has also remained un-rebutted and un- controverted. Hence, in the facts of this case, no delay, laches or acquiescence on the part of the claimant has been brought on record.
100. The reference as received is accordingly answered as under:
"(i) There existed employee - employer relationship exists between the claimant Sh. Chandra Prakash Pandey S/o Late Sh. Satya Nath Pandey, (Age-44 years), Mobile No. 9013121141) and the respondents/ managements.
(ii) The claimant Sh. Chandra Prakash Pandey S/o Late Sh. Satya Nath Pandey is entitled to sum of ₹ 11,80,523.59 comprising of ₹80,008/- towards interim relief w.e.f. 01.06.2009 to 10.11.2011 and a sum of ₹11,00,515.59/- towards difference in wages w.e.f.
11.11.2011 to 01.12.2013 as per Majithia wage board recommendation under the Working Journalists and Digitally LIR No. 1260/2019 signed by POOJA Page no. 42 of 43 POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12 16:13:01 +0530 Other Newspaper Employees (Condition of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955."
101. Copy of Award be uploaded on the website of RADC and be also sent to the concerned department through proper channels as per rules.
102. File be consigned to the record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the Open Court Digitally signed by POOJA today i.e. on 12th February 2025 POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.02.12 16:13:11 +0530 (POOJA AGGARWAL) Presiding Officer Labour Court -01 Rouse Avenue District Court New Delhi (sa) LIR No. 1260/2019 Page no. 43 of 43