Allahabad High Court
M/S Kanwhizz Times vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 29 July, 2022
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19221 of 2022 Petitioner :- M/S Kanwhizz Times Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jamal Ahmad Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Shri Jamal Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
2. Challenge has been raised to the order dated 6.4.2022 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Prayagraj, in W.J. Case No. 24 of 2022 whereby the Labour Court has rejected the application filed by the present petitioner objecting to the jurisdiction of that Court.
3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is, by virtue of Section 3 of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'Working Journalists Act') read with Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists Act in conjunction with Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act'), the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court appointed under the State Government who did not have qualifications prescribed under the Central Act cannot hear the dispute arising under the Working Journalists Act. He has also referred to different qualifications for appointment as Presiding Officer of the Labour Court as prescribed under the Central Act and the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'U.P. Act').
4. Second, it has been submitted, the Labour Court has offered no reason and or wholly unsustainable reason to assume jurisdiction. Merely because it may have entertained similar proceedings and no objection may have been raised in those or similar objections may have been rejected, would not create jurisdiction that may otherwise existed.
5. In that view, it has been submitted, the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remitted to the Labour Court to decide the objection as to jurisdiction, strictly in accordance with law.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, no interference may be claimed in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Section 3 of the Working Journalists Act is applicable to the provisions of the Central Act. Then, Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists Act reads as below:
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.
7. Thus, the State Government has been authorized to make a reference of any dispute that may arise under the Working Journalists Act to a Labour Court constituted by it under the Central Act or the U.P. Act. Then, under Section 7 of the Central Act, the qualification for the person to be appointed as Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has been prescribed. It reads as below:
"7. Labour Courts.- (1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Labour Courts for the adjudication of industrial disputes relating to any matter specified in the Second Schedule and for performing such other functions as may be assigned to them under this Act.
(2) A Labour Court shall consist of one person only to be appointed by the appropriate Government.
(3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the presiding officer of a Labour Court, unless--
(a) he is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court; or
(b) he has, for a period of not less than three years, been a District Judge or an Additional District Judge; or
(c) ***
(d) he has held any judicial office in India for not less than seven years; or
(e) he has been the presiding officer of a Labour Court constituted under any Provincial Act or State Act for not less than five years.
(f) he is or has been a Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) or Joint Commissioner of the State Labour Department, having a degree in law and at least seven years' experience in the labour department including three years of experience as Conciliation Officer:
Provided that no such Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner or Joint Labour Commissioner shall be appointed unless he resigns from the service of the Central Government or State Government, as the case may be, before being appointed as the presiding officer; or
(g) he is an officer of Indian Legal Service in Grade III with three years' experience in the grade."
8. Since the Presiding Officer at Labour Court, Prayagraj had not been a judicial officer, he is stated to be an officer not having qualification to be appointed as the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court under the Central Act. Consequently, he is not competent to entertain or conclude upon a reference made under Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists Act.
9. The submission advanced though attract, cannot be accepted. Under Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists Act, State Government is an appropriate government that may make the reference. In doing so, it may make the reference offered to the Labour Court constituted under the Central Act or under the corresponding law enforced in the State. Therefore, the State Government could make such reference under the U.P. Act as well.
10. There is no dispute to the fact that such reference was made by the State Government under the U.P. Act. Perusal of the reference order dated 18.8.2020 reveals, that reference has been made by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Prayagraj, with reference to Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists Act. It has been made to the Labour Court, Stretchy Road, Prayagraj. That court is a Labour Court consisted by the State Government under the Central Act as also the U.P. Act.
11. Once the State Government has not made the reference to an Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court constituted under the Central Act (only) and such reference has been made to the Labour Court constituted both under the Central Act and the U.P. Act, it would be artificial and technical to construe that the reference was inherently defective because the Presiding Officer at such Labour Court does not have the qualifications prescribed under the Central Act. That condition of eligibility would attract if the Labour Court to which such reference has been made, was the Labour Court constituted solely under the Central Act. In that, the question of eligibility of the Presiding Officer as prescribed under Section 7 of the Central Act would apply.
12. That objection may have been sustained or it may have been considered, if the reference order indicating the reference made to the Labour Court constituted under the Central Act. In absence of any indication to that effect, challenge raised is found to be superficial. The reasoning of the Labour Court to deal with the objections may be unsustainable. Accordingly, the Labour Court may have dealt with such case in the past, without objection raised as to the jurisdiction would not confer jurisdiction, in any case.
13. However, as noted above, since no defect is seen in the assumption of the proceeding, in the present case, no useful purpose would be served in setting aside the order of the Labour Court merely because its reasoning may not be accepted.
14. In view of the above, present petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.7.2022 Prakhar