Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nai Dunia (A Unit Of Nagran Prakashan ... vs Mayaram Mishra on 25 November, 2021
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
1
M.P.No.3307/2021
Nai Dunia & Anr. Vs. Anil Samadhia
M.P.No.3648/2021
Nai Dunia & Anr. Vs. Shriroman Singh Tomar
M.P.No.3650/2021
Nai Dunia & Anr. Vs. Subhash Kumar Tripathi
M.P.No.3653/2021
Nai Dunia & Anr. Vs. Sandeep Pathak
M.P.No.3654/2021
Nai Dunia & Anr. Vs. Ganesh Kulshreshtha & Anr.
M.P.No.3656/2021
Nai Dunia & Anr. Vs. Prabhat Bhatnagar
M.P.No.3657/2021
Nai Dunia & Anr. Vs. Anamika Mishra
M.P.No.3659/2021
Nai Dunia & Anr. Vs. Milind Bhindwale & Anr.
M.P.No.3660/2021
Nai Dunia & Anr. Vs. Sarvesh Bhatnagar
M.P.No.3662/2021
Nai Dunia & Anr. Vs. Mayaram Mishra
Gwalior Bench Dated; 25.11.2021
Shri Sanjay Kaushal, learned senior counsel with Shri Kuldeep
Bhargav and Shri Manoj Dubey, learned counsel for petitioners.
Shri K.N. Gupta, learned senior counsel with Shri Navnidhi
Padarya, learned counsel for respondent employee.
Heard on admission and interlocutory application vide I.A.13214/2021.
1. Regard being had to the similitude of the facts and arising out of THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 the awards dated 08/19-08-2019 passed by the Labour Court No.1, Gwalior, common order is being passed and for convenience's sake, facts of Miscellaneous Petition No.3307/2021 have been taken for consideration.
2. The instant miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred at the instance of petitioners/employer being crestfallen by award dated 08-08- 2019 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.1, Gwalior (vide Annexure P/1) whereby reference under Section 17(2) of The Working Journalists and Other News Paper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1955") has been decided and amount of Rs.27,54,022/- has been awarded to the employee (awarded amount differs in each case) with the direction to the employer to pay the same within one month along with Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Precisely stated facts of the case are that respondent/News Paper Employee filed an application claiming the benefit of Majithia Wage Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Wage Board") before the Deputy Labour Commissioner. Employer was put to notice in which claim was resisted by employer on various grounds. The Deputy Labour Commissioner apprised the State Government about the dispute and in turn the Government sent THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 the reference for adjudication before the labour Court. The legality, validity and propriety of the reference made to the labour Court by the State Government under Section 17(2) of the Act, 1955 was put to challenge by the petitioners (in some other identical cases) before High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore by way of Writ Petition No.16209/2018, 16178/2018, 16185/2018, 16198/2018 (Nai Dunia Vs. State of M.P. and others) and the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 25- 07-2018 decided the case in which reference made was found to be valid and writ petitions were dismissed. In line of the said order, bunch of writ petitions; which were pending before this Court (Gwalior Bench) also got disposed of vide order dated 13- 12-2018 in the light of order dated 25-07-2018 as referred above.
4. It further appears that taking exception to the order passed by learned Single Judge, certain writ appeals were filed and Division Bench by way of bunch of Writ Appeals (vide No.1858/2018 and other appeals) vide order dated 09-05-2019 decided the said bunch in which order of learned Single Judge was affirmed and no fault was found in the order of reference passed by the State Government.
5. It further appears from the submissions and pleadings that both the parties appeared before the labour Court and labour Court THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 after considering the pleadings/evidence led/submissions advanced, passed the impugned awards dated 08-08-2019 which are being challenged by petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution.
6. It further appears that meanwhile employees of petitioners filed Revenue Recovery Certificate (RRC) proceedings, pursuant to the awards dated 08/19-08-2019 and they were pending execution before the concerned authority, therefore, employees preferred petitions for execution of award in which Division Bench of this Court in writ petition No.16060/2021 passed certain directions including the order dated 04-10-2021 wherein Court granted further time till 31st December, 2021 to the concerned authority to execute the RRC and ensure the benefits flowing out of the award and matter is directed to be taken up in second week of January, 2022 for compliance.
7. With this factual backdrop, it is the submission of learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners that the application preferred by respondent was purportedly under Section 17(1) of the Act, 1955 and therefore, Deputy Labour Commissioner/State Government erred in making reference to labour Court under Section 17(2) of the Act, 1955. Learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners laid much emphasis on the point of delay and laches as according to him, Wage Board gave its THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 5 recommendations in 2011 and Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the recommendations of the Wage Board way back in 2014, therefore, reference made thereafter in 2017 suffers from delay and laches.
8. It is further submitted that when the employees adopted the mode as per clause 20(j) of the Wage Board recommendations about acceptance of existing pay scale and emoluments then they waived their rights as per doctrine of Waiver to reagitate the issue. He relied upon judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Avishek Raja and others Vs. Sanjay Gupta, (2017) 8 SCC
435. Since no doubt regarding amount due exist, therefore, ignoring this aspect labour Court caused illegality and perversity.
9. No other arguments were advanced and learned senior counsel fairly submits that he reserves his arguments further for final hearing.
10. Respondent caused his appearance and filed reply in which he contested the case with equal vehemence. At the outset, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent referred the scope of Article 227 of Constitution and while relying upon different pronouncements made by Hon'ble Apex Court from time to time stressed upon the limited scope of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution. He relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 6 Court in the matter of Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, (2010) 3 SCC 192, Iswarlal Mohanlal Thakkar Vs. Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited and another, (2014) 6 SCC 434 and ABP Private Limited and another Vs. Union of India and others, (2014) 3 SCC 327. He stressed over the submission that scope of jurisdiction of High Court vis-a-vis findings of labour Court/Tribunal is limited. Court below after due consideration and evidence led by the parties came to a conclusion which is just and proper, needs no interference.
11. Through various provisions of the Act, 1955, learned senior counsel placed reliance upon Section 13 of the Act, 1955 to submit that statute gives entitlement to the employee to wages at rates not less than those specified in the order of Central Government under Section 12.
12. It is submitted that once the scope of reference and its validity has already been decided and when execution is going on against employer, then petition itself suffers from delay and laches and deserves dismissal.
13. Heard the rival contentions and perused the documents appended thereto.
14. It is a case where respondent/employee is seeking the benefits of recommendations of Majithia Wage Board. So far as scope and THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 7 validity of reference is concerned, Coordinate Bench and Division Bench of this Court has gone into detail and thereafter found the reference to be valid and proper. From the pleadings and submissions, it appear that no challenge to the said order has been made and therefore, order dated 09-05-2019 passed by Division Bench attained finality. Once the reference found to be valid then prima facie for deciding the instant interim application, maintainability of reference to labour Court cannot be looked into.
15. Plea as raised by petitioners regarding delay and laches in making reference is concerned, in absence of any limitation prescribed as well as the fact that after matter being settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in 2017 employees which were engaged in procedure for getting the fruits of award then it was the recurring cause of action and even no delay and laches appear to be existing prima facie in the case.
16. The aspect of waiver has been discussed in detail by learned Court below and while appreciating the evidence found prima facie that document of consent was prima facie doubtful and it cannot be construed as consent. It is to be seen in the light of judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and Anr. Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Ors., (1986) 3 SCC 156 and THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 8 Assistant General Manager and others Vs. Radhey Shyam Pandey, (2020) 6 SCC 438. In fact Court below referred the fact regarding one missing page also which could have material bearing. Beside that, execution proceedings are already going on in which petitioners are expected to comply the spirit of award.
15. Therefore, confining the discussion to the extent of arriving to a prima facie conclusion of interim relief, this Court does not find the case for interim relief. Therefore, I.A.No.13214/2021 stands rejected. Petitioners shall have to disburse the awarded sum or alternatively deposit awarded sum before the labour Court in a Fixed Deposit Receipt of a Nationalized Bank, fetching regular interest on or before 31st December, 2021.
16. Looking to the nature of controversy, matter deserves to be heard at an early date. Since respondent caused his appearance, therefore, no fresh notice is required to be made. Parties are expected to complete the pleadings, if any, within six weeks.
17. List the matter in first week of February, 2022 for further orders.
(Anand Pathak) Anil* Judge ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA KUMAR PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=8512f40a1a9eaa50b6802d068b51da e27e84c266b09d283f0799e67cdc7df50f, CHAURA pseudonym=F7E569EA2A8955818DF870B0C 50764B46C526E80, serialNumber=EC534CBB3B245F050119F06F4 A296DD83C765A1E2ACC6EC7D8BD8CBCC9C 2446E, cn=ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA SIYA Date: 2021.11.21 16:34:30 -08'00'