Allahabad High Court
Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd Jagatganj ... vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 8 July, 2019
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 18 Reserved A.F.R. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9321 of 2019 Petitioner :- Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd Jagatganj Teliyabagh Varanasi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashutosh Mani,D.S,M. Tripathi Connected with Case :- WRIT - C No. - 49327 of 2017 Petitioner :- Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd. Meerut Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gopal Narain Srivastava,Sudhanshu Narain And Case :- WRIT - C No. - 61732 of 2017 Petitioner :- Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd. Bareilly Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Man Mohan Singh And Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8709 of 2019 Petitioner :- Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8739 of 2019 Petitioner :- Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8844 of 2019 Petitioner :- Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8922 of 2019 Petitioner :- Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9329 of 2019 Petitioner :- Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashutosh Mani Tripathi,D.Sm. Tripathi And Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9376 of 2019 Petitioner :- Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9378 of 2019 Petitioner :- Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9381 of 2019 Petitioner :- Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashutosh Mani,D.S.M. Tripathi And Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9384 of 2019 Petitioner :- Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd Jagatganj Teliyabagh Varanasi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashutosh Mani Tripathi,D.S.M.Tripathi And Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9531 of 2019 Petitioner :- Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Man Mohan Singh And Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9551 of 2019 Petitioner :- Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9560 of 2019 Petitioner :- Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9569 of 2019 Petitioner :- Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9581 of 2019 Petitioner :- Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Man Mohan Singh And Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9792 of 2019 Petitioner :- Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9515 of 2019 Petitioner :- Amar Ujala Publications Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9774 of 2019 Petitioner :- Amar Ujala Publications Ltd Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9799 of 2019 Petitioner :- Amar Ujala Publication Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,D.S. Mani Tripathi,Ashutosh Mani Tripathi And Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9800 of 2019 Petitioner :- Amar Ujala Publications Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9801 of 2019 Petitioner :- Amar Ujala Publications Ltd Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9802 of 2019 Petitioner :- Amar Ujala Publications Ltd Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9803 of 2019 Petitioner :- Amar Ujala Publications Ltd Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashutosh Mani Tripathi,D.S. Mani Tripathi And Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9804 of 2019 Petitioner :- Amar Ujala Publication Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashutosh Mani Tripathi,D.S. Mani Tripathi And Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9805 of 2019 Petitioner :- Amar Ujala Publication Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6198 of 2019 Petitioner :- United Bharat Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Tripathi,Devesh Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kripa Shankar Singh Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
1. All these writ petitions call in question a notification issued by the State Government in exercise of their power under sub-Section (1) of Section 17 of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Misc. Provisions Act, 1995 (for short the Act), whereby the Government have delegated their powers under Section 17(1) last mentioned to officers specified in the 2nd Column of the Schedule appended to the aforesaid notification. In Column 3 of the Schedule appended to the notification aforesaid, the territories in respect of which each of the officers mentioned in Column 2 would exercise jurisdiction, have been shown, and referred to as the notified area there. The aforesaid notification is hereinafter referred to as the impugned notification.
In exercise of powers conferred by the impugned notification, the officers delegated those powers have made references of disputed claims to wages payable under the Act, relating to their notified area between the petitioners in each of the writ petitions, and the concerned workman, to the Labour Court exercising jurisdiction in that area. These reference orders are, therefore, of different dates, made by different officers in exercise of delegated powers relating to their notified area and in reference to different workmen. These reference orders are, therefore, different in each of the writ petitions. However, what is common to all these reference orders is the fact that all these have been made by officers in exercise of powers under Section 17(2) of the Act, delegated under the impugned notification.
There is not much quarrel on facts so far as the issue involved in the present case is concerned, or is there any difference on facts between various writ petitions regarding that issue. The dispute involved is, therefore, identical on facts and law in all the writ petitions. These are, therefore, being disposed of by means of this common judgment and order.
2. Writ - C No.9321 of 2019 has been heard as the leading case. Sri Sunil Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the three petitioner, that is to say, Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd., Amar Ujala and United Bharat, who between them have filed all these 28 writ petitions, and different learned counsel appearing for different workmen in each of the writ petitions, have addressed the Court. In order to set the record straight, respondent no.4 to all the writ petitions are the different workman at whose instance reference orders have been made, that are challenged in the various petitions. Respondent no.1 is the State, respondent no.2 in all the petitions is the Jurisdictional Labour Court and respondent no.3 is the Assistant/ Deputy/ Additional Labour Commissioner, by whom the impugned reference orders in each of the writ petition have been made. These respondents arrayed as respondents nos.1, 2 & 3 in each of the writ petitions, have been represented by the learned Standing Counsel at the hearing.
3. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri D.S.M. Tripathi and S/Sri Ashutosh Mani, Kripa Shankar Singh, Manmohan Singh and Gopal Narayan, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents in the leading petition and all connected matters at considerable length and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents.
4. In order to understand the facts giving rise to the cause of action and identical challenge involved in the leading case and the connected matters, it would be gainful to refer to facts giving rise to the petition dealt with as the leading case. The petitioner, Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd. are a company incorporated under the Companies Act having its branches at various places in the country, and amongst them, a branch office at Jagatganj, Teliyabagh, Varanasi. The petitioner is engaged in the publication of a newspapers in Hindi, going by the name ''Hindustan'. It is acknowledged that the petitioners are a newspaper establishments as defined under Section 2(d) of the Act. It has been mentioned that M/s. Hindustan Times Ltd., another newspaper company, were taken over by the petitioners w.e.f. 11.11.2008. However, the two organizations are different and independent. Respondent no.4 here Arvind Kumar Chaubey, filed an application on 16.10.2017 under Section 17(1) of the Act claiming recovery of arrears due to him on account of difference in the revised salary w.e.f. 01.11.2011 to September, 2012 payable to him as per claim under the Majithia Wage Board Award. The fourth respondent's claim is that he was appointed as a Deputy Chief Copy Editor at Varanasi. His claim application was registered as Case no.26 of 2017 by respondent no.3, and summons dated 17.07.2018 was issued by respondent no.3 to the petitioner. The petitioner filed objections to the summons before respondent no.3 raising, inter-alia, the following grounds:
(i) In case of a dispute regarding ''money due' under the Act, the State Government alone have jurisdiction to make a reference to the Labour Court under Section 17(2) thereof. Reference of a disputed issue about remuneration between the workman and the Employers is ultra vires the jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner under Section 17(2) of the Act;
(ii) The workman lodged a claim towards arrears for the period 01.11.2011 to 30.09.2012 liquidated at a figure of Rs.1,71,000/- under Majithia Wage Board Award applicable w.e.f. 01.11.2011, whereas respondent no.4 had left service in June, 2012;
(iii) There is a dispute regarding classification of the newspaper and the amount claimed in the application. The said disputed claims are beyond jurisdiction of the Authority under Section 17(1) of the Act;
(iv) The workman filed his claim concealing important terms and conditions of service dated 17.12.2002, wherein he had given express consent that he would not be governed by any wage fixation mechanism;
(v) The workman was initially employed by M/s. Hindustan Times Limited, under a contract of service dated 17.12.2002. M/s. Hindustan Times Ltd. have been subsequently taken over by the petitioners;
(vi) The workman had filed his claim on the basis of an imaginary classification under the Majithia Wage Board Award, after an inordinate delay of five years, reckoned from the date that he left service of the petitioners in the month of June, 2012; and,
(vii) The workman was employed in a Managerial and Administrative capacity, and therefore, is not covered under the definition of a Working Journalist as envisaged under Section 2(4) of the Act.
5. Respondent no.3 did not go into the objections raised and passed the impugned order of reference dated 30.07.2018. The Labour Court-II, U.P., Varanasi, has taken cognizance of the reference and summoned the parties to appear before it, that is to say, the petitioner and the fourth respondent vide summons dated 23.08.2012. It is at this stage that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of reference and the impugned notification dated 12.11.2014.
6. The thrust of the submission of Sri Sunil Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is a clear dichotomy of powers under Section 17(1) and 17(2) of the Act. He submits that looking to the history of legislation also, the power is a legislative recognition to early judicial authority that a disputed claim by a workman under the Act could not be the subject of recovery by the State Government for the workman's asking. He points out that the power under Section 17(1) is generically different from the power under Section 17(2), both of which under the Statute belong to the State Government. Whereas, the power under Section 17(1) is a power to recover undisputed claims to salary and other emoluments by the workman where there is nothing in the sense of a lis involved, the power under Section 17(2) is in sharp contrast. The latter power is referable to a situation where there is a claim to emoluments put forward by a workman under the Act, which is truly in the sense of a lis to be adjudicated between him and the Employer. This power, therefore, does not authorize the State Government to proceed to recovery, as per claim of the workman. It only empowers the State Government to make a reference of the matter to the "Labour Court constituted by it under the Industrial Disputes Act, or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial dispute in force in the State", to borrow the precise phraseology of the Statute employed in sub-Section (2) of Section 17 of the Act. The last mentioned power is only a power of reference to the Labour Court which has then the obligation to adjudicate the lis between parties and decide upon the workman's claim. Unlike Section 17(1), the power under Section 17(2) is not a power to recover; but a power to refer.
7. In order to highlight his submissions, Sri Sunil Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the provisions of Section 17 of the Act, which are quoted infra:
"Section 17 of the Act of 1955 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)."
(Emphasis by the petitioner)
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the two powers under Section 17(1) and 17(2) being generically different, traceable to two different sources in the two sub-Sections of Section 17, the absence of the words "or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf" in sub-Section (2) and the occurrence of that phrase in sub-Section (1) of Section 17, makes it transparently clear that whereas the power under sub-Section (1) of Section 17 can be delegated by the State Government to such authority as may it chose to specify, the power under sub-Section (2) of Section 17, that is to say, the power to refer a dispute to the Labour Court under the Act, cannot be delegated by the State Government.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a juxtaposition of the phraseology in sub-Section (1) and sub-Section (2) of Section 17 does not spare a shadow of doubt that the legislature has consciously omitted reference to an authority to whom the power under sub-Section (2) may be delegated by the State Government, unlike sub-Section (1). He submits that applying the golden rule of construction, a Statute is to be interpreted according to its plain and ordinary meaning, unless that leads to some absurd conclusion or result or renders another provision in the Statute otiose. Upon a reading of the two sub-Sections, there is no such imperative that may require a departure from the golden rule or literal rule of construction. He has further urged that when in two sub-Sections of the same Section, the legislature has omitted mention of a power to delegate that finds an express mention in sub-Section (1), the unexceptionable inference is that under sub-Section (2), regarding the power to refer, there is no authority with the State Government to delegate. He, therefore, submits that the impugned notification is ultra vires the provisions of Section 17(2) of the Act. In consequence the impugned order of reference is without jurisdiction and so are the consequent judicial proceedings before the Labour Court that emanate from a reference made without jurisdiction.
10. Sri Sunil Kumar Tripathi has argued very persuasively, extending his reasoning built on the aforesaid edifice, by arguments as ingenuously made, in support of which he has relied upon authorities, including those in V.L.S. Finance Ltd. v. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 278; Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services, (2012) 9 SCC 552; Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta, (2005) 2 SCC 271; Nagar Palika Nigam v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, (2008) 12 SCC 364; two of these are Constitution Bench decisions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court. On the strength of these decision, he has impressed upon the Court that the basic principle of interpretation is that words and phrases employed in a Statute are to be given their natural, plain and clear meaning, where the language is clear and unambiguous. It must be interpreted in its ordinary sense and no addition or alteration of words or expressions used is permissible. He has also referred to the decision in Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. v. Mackinnon Employees Union, (2015) 4 SCC 544 to impress upon the Court that the law is well settled that if the Statute prescribes a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all. On the strength of this authority, he has urged that sub-Section (2) of Section 17 cannot be read to mean that the State Government has any power there to delegate its function to an authority subordinate to it, empowering it to make a reference to the Labour Court.
11. At this stage where arguments before this Court were heard at great length, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents, S/Sri Ashutosh Mani, Kripa Shankar Singh, Manmohan Singh and Gopal Narayan, pointed out that this Court has considered the proposition now urged in support of this petition in Pradhan Prabandhak/ Unit Head M/s. Amar Ujala vs. State of U.P. and others, 2018(4) AWC 3726, where this Court precisely dealt with the same issue in relation to the same impugned notification as the one under challenge, dated 12.11.2014, and of course, an order of reference in identical terms as the one involved in this case, where all these contentions were repelled by this Court. There, this Court noticed all the submissions now advanced on behalf of the petitioner with reference to all authorities that have now been relied upon to buttress those submissions, besides a contention advanced by the petitioner in that case based on the Rule of casus omissus. Amongst many a fine detail to support the fundamental contention, the substance of the petitioner's case in Pradhan Prabandhak/ Unit Head M/s. Amar Ujala (supra) was noticed by the Court in paragraph 14 of the Report, that reads thus:
"14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that in sub-section (2) of section 17 of the Act there is conscious omission of the words "such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf" and such omission cannot be supplied by way of judicial interpretation in view of rule of casus omissus. It has been urged that sub-section (2) contemplates a separate application for reference although the State Government may, also, on its own motion, make a reference upon coming to know about dispute but, in no case, reference, under sub-section (2) of section 17 can be made by the authority specified under sub-section (1) of section 17."
12. Dealing with the aforesaid contentions, it was held in Pradhan Prabandhak/ Unit Head M/s. Amar Ujala (supra) by this Court in paragraphs 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 49, 50 & 51 of the Report thus:
"40. Having gone through the provisions of the Act, 1955, the Rules framed thereunder, the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the parties and, in particular, the decision of the Apex Court in Samarjit Ghosh's case (supra), this Court is of the firm view that section 17 of the Act, 1955 contemplates a seamless single scheme for recovery of amount due to a newspaper employee from any employer under the Act, 1955. The application by a newspaper employee is to be filed under sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Act, as per Rule 36 of Rules, 1957. That application can be filed before the State Government or such authority, as the State Government may specify in that behalf. Where there exists no dispute, the State Government or the authority, so specified, upon being satisfied that any amount is so due, shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector would, thereafter, recover that amount as an arrear of land revenue. Where a question or dispute arises then a reference is to be made to the labour court for adjudication of the dispute. After adjudicating the dispute, the labour court has to forward its decision to the State Government or authority which made the reference, upon which the amount is to be recovered in the manner provided by sub-section (1) of the Act. Since Section 17, as a whole, creates a single seamless scheme, the State Government, in exercise of its power under sub-section (1) can specify an authority to do all acts which it has power to do under Section 17 of the Act.
41. In the State of Uttar Pradesh, the State Government, by notification dated 12th November, 2016, has delegated its powers to the Additional/Deputy/Assistant Labour Commissioners of the regions specified to dispose application made under section 17 of the Act, 1955. The notification does not limit the delegation to exercise of power contemplated by sub-section (1) of section 17. It is a broad delegation to exercise power to dispose application under Section 17. Once such power has been conferred upon the Additional/Deputy/Asst. Labour Commissioner, in case of a dispute, the Deputy Labour Commissioner is also empowered to make a reference and such reference would be on behalf of the State Government as one contemplated by sub-section (2) of section 17 of the Act.
42. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a conscious omission of the words "such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf" in sub-section (2) of section 17 of the Act, 1955 and therefore it would be deemed that reference can be made only by the State Government and not by the specified authority cannot be accepted because when various parts of section 17 are read as a whole a single seamless scheme emerges. Even otherwise, the notification of the State Government delegates power to the authority specified to deal with applications under Section 17 which necessarily includes power to make reference under Section 17(2).
43. It may be observed that a reference under sub-section (2) of section 17 of the Act does not contemplate exercise of judicial/quasi-judicial power and therefore the power which vests in the State Government to make a reference can be delegated and, in fact, by the notification dated 12th November, 2014, the State Government has clearly delegated its power by specifying the authorities who are competent to dispose the applications contemplated by section 17 of the Act. In fact, reference on an application under sub-section (1) upon a question having arisen is a step-in-aid of final disposal of an application under section 17 (1) of the Act, 1955 and, therefore, by conferring power on the specified authority to dispose the application under Section 17, the State Government, by necessary implication, has conferred power to make a reference as well.
44. The argument of the petitioner's counsel that upon dispute a fresh application would have to be submitted before the State Government for reference before the State Government, if accepted, would defeat the legislative intent of creating a single seamless scheme for recovery of the dues.
49. From the decisions noticed above, it is clear that casus omissus cannot be supplied by the Court except in the case of clear necessity and when reason for it is found in the four corners of the statute itself but at the same time a casus omissus should not be readily inferred and for that purpose all the parts of a statute or section must be construed together and every clause of a section should be construed with reference to the context and other clauses thereof so that the construction to be put on a particular provision makes a consistent enactment of the whole statute.
50. In the instant case, when the entire section 17 of the Act, 1955 is read as a whole, it cannot be said that the legislature intentionally omitted the words "such authority, as specified by the State Government", from sub-section (2) of section 17 of the Act because by providing the power of delegation in sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Act, keeping in mind the scheme of the entire section 17 of the Act, 1955, the State Government was empowered to delegate its power to deal with applications contemplated under Section 17 of the Act, 1955. Otherwise also, the State Government under its general power of delegation by notification can delegate exercise of its administrative power.
51. In the instant case, the State Government had empowered the Deputy Labour Commissioner to dispose of application under Section 17 of the Act which would include power to refer to the labour court as it was a step-in-aid for disposal of the application under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act. Therefore the specified authority did not lack jurisdiction to make a reference to the labour court. Accordingly, the reference order does not suffer from jurisdictional error."
13. All contentions raised in this petition on behalf of the petitioner stand dealt with and answered by this Court in the decision in Pradhan Prabandhak/ Unit Head M/s. Amar Ujala (supra), with which this Court is in respectful agreement. Indeed, in the opinion of this Court, Section 17 constitutes a single repository of power in the matter of recovery of dues under the Act. The power is to recover money of a workman due from an employer. It is to be exercised as an executive power, if there is no dispute about the claim made, by the issue of a recovery certificate to the Collector. This is to be done by the State Government, or such authority as may be specified in this behalf. It is the same power to recover dues of a workman under the Act from an employer, that is exercised when a reference is made to the Court under sub-Section (2). The only difference is that the contingency dealt with under sub-Section (2) is one where the claim is disputed and acquires the complexion of a lis. In that situation, the State Government has to make a reference to the Labour Court for the determination of that lis. Thereafter, under sub-Section (3) of Section 17, the decision of the Labour Court is to be forwarded to the State Government, which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court is to be recovered in the manner prescribed under sub-Section (1). It will be noticed that the words employed under sub-Section (3) of Section 17 are "decision of the Labour Court", and not "an award", which is the word employed under the Industrial Disputes Act and cognate Statutes. Sub-Section (3) further shows that the amount found due by the Labour Court by its decision is to be recovered by the State Government in the manner prescribed under sub-Section (1) of Section 17, all of which go to show that it is but one generic power of the State Government to recover dues of a workman under the Act from his employers, that is the solitary power envisaged and invested by the Statute in the State Government, under Section 17. There is no generically different power to be found in sub-Sections (1) and (2) of Section 17, as urged by Sri Sunil Kumar Tripathi. It is, therefore, the same power that has been integrated in the various sub-Sections of Section 17 of the Act, that has been rightly described as a "seamless single scheme for recovery of amount due to a newspaper employee from an employer under the Act of 1955" by Manoj Misra, J. in Pradhan Prabandhak/ Unit Head M/s. Amar Ujala (supra).
14. Sri Sunil Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court a recent decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jagran Prakashan Limited vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP No.16275 of 2018, decided on 25.03.2019, where the line of reasoning urged by Sri Tripathi to interpret sub-Section (1) and sub-Section (2) of the Act has been accepted, and on the basis of an identically worded notification of the State Government delegating powers under Section 17(2) of the Act to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, has been held not to empower the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jalandhar to make a reference under Section 17(2) to the Labour Court. In the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, it is pointed out by Sri Tripathi that the decision of this Court Pradhan Prabandhak/ Unit Head M/s. Amar Ujala (supra) has been considered and distinguished in paragraph 9, which reads thus:
"9. The respondent-workmen have relied on the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11856 of 2018, Pradhan Prabandhak/Unit Head M/s Amar Ujala Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2018 (7) ADJ 715. The case is clearly distinguishable on facts. In that case there was no notification of the UP Government like the restricted one here. The State of UP had in its notification made a blanket law delegating powers of State Government under Section 17 of the Act to specified officers without specifying either Sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 17 of the Act."
15. This Court is constrained to say most respectfully that the reasoning of his Lordship in paragraph 9 of the judgment in Jagran Prakashan Limited vs. State of Punjab and others (supra) is based on some mistaken reading of the U.P. Government Notification, inasmuch as, His Lordship there has held that the U.P. Notification has made a blanket law delegating powers of the Government under Section 17 of the Act to subordinate officers, without specifying whether the delegation is under sub-Section (1) or sub-Section (2) of Section 17. This reading of the U.P. Notification is contrary to the terms of the notification dated 12.11.2014, which clearly spells out that the delegation is under Section 17(1) of the Act. It is not a blanket delegation under Section 17 as held in Jagran Prakashan Limited vs. State of Punjab and others (supra).
16. This Court is afraid that if for a fact the basis of distinguishing the decision in Pradhan Prabandhak/ Unit Head M/s. Amar Ujala (supra), were factually correct, which it is not, the assistance sought to be derived by Sri Tripathi from the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court would have had more diminished prospects. But, it is not so. This Court has considered the reasoning adopted in Jagran Prakashan Limited vs. State of Punjab and others (supra) by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and with greatest respect, for all that is said here and in the decision of this Court in Pradhan Prabandhak/ Unit Head M/s. Amar Ujala (supra), this Court is unable to agree.
17. In the result, these writ petitions fail and are dismissed with costs payable to the workman.
18. Interim orders granted in Writ - C Nos. 6198 of 2019 (United Bharat vs. State of U.P. and 3 others), 8709 of 2019 (Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and 3 others), 8739 of 2019 (Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and 4 others), 8844 of 2019 (Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and 4 others), and 8922 of 2019 (Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and 5 others), are hereby vacated.
Order Date :- 8.7.2019 Anoop