Delhi District Court
Bibek Bhattacharjee vs M/S The Statesman Ltd on 6 July, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SUJIT SAURABH, PRESIDING
OFFICER, LABOUR COURT-IX, ROUSE AVENUE
DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI
LIR No. 1458/19
CNR-DLCT13-002500-2019
Sh. Bibek Bhattacharjee
S/o Late Sh. Krishna Chandra Bhattacharjee
R/o H. No. P-17/B-2,
Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095
......Workman
Versus
M/s The Statesman Ltd.
Statesman House, Connaught Place,
New Delhi-110001 ......Management
Date of Institution : 03.06.2019
Date of Award : 06.07.2024
AWARD
1. This is a reference under section 10(1)(c) of Industrial Dispute
Act, 1947 (in short 'ID ACT'). The reference has been sent to the
court for adjudication by Dy. Labour Commissioner, New Delhi
District, Govt. of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, vide
notification No. F.24 (47)/09/WJA/DLC/NDD/ 2018/4144 dated
28.05.2019, in the dispute arising between a newspaper employee
namely, Sh. Bibek Bhattacharjee (hereinafter, referred to as
'Workman') and the management of M/s The Statesman Ltd.
(hereinafter, referred to as 'Management'). The terms of reference
LIR No.1458/19 Bibek Bhattacharjee versus M/s The Statesman Ltd. Page 1 of 13
read as follows:
"Weather Shri Bibek Bhattacharjee, an ex-employee of M/s
Statesman Ltd., is entitled to the claim amount of on account of
wages arrears as claimed for the period 01.04.2014 to
31.12.2014 as per Majithia Wage Board Recommendations
under The Working Journalist and Other Newspaper Employees
(Condition of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955,
and if so, what directions are necessary in this regard?"
2. Initially, the reference was sent to the Labour Court No. XIX,
Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi. During course of proceeding
before Labour Court No. XIX, the Additional Labour Commissioner,
Labour Department, Government of National Capital Territory of
Delhi, transferred the matter to this court vide Order No.
15(16)/Lab/2021 647 dated 08.02.2021.
3. After receipt of the reference, statement of claim under section
17(2) of The Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees
(Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (in
short, 'Working Journalist Act') was filed on behalf of the
workman.
4. As per the statement of claim, the workman was in the
employment of the management since 1981 and he retired from the
service of the management on 31.12.2014 as Proof Reader. As a
newspaper employee, he was covered by Majithia Wage Board
Award as notified by the Government of India validity of which was
upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in WPC No. 246/2011. The
management establishment fell under Category -5 of the newspaper
establishments as per the Majithia Wage Board Award. Vide order
dated 07.02.2014, Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the management
LIR No.1458/19 Bibek Bhattacharjee versus M/s The Statesman Ltd. Page 2 of 13
to make payment of wages and other benefits to the journalists and
non-journalists on the basis of the Majithia Wage Board Award w.e.f
11.11.2011. Wages at the new salary scales were to be paid from
01.04.2014 whereas arrears of wages were to be paid
from11.11.2011. However, the management did not implement the
directives of Hon'ble Supreme Court. The workman had received last
monthly wage in sum of Rs. 19,353/- (Rupees nineteen thousand
three hundred and fifty-three only) whereas it should have been Rs.
33,570/- (Rupees thirty-three thousand five hundred and seventy
only) as per Majithia Wage Board Award. The workman has stated
that the management is liable to pay arrears of wages w.e.f
01.04.2014 to 31.12.2014. He has claimed Rs. 1,27,953/ /- (Rupees
one lac twenty-seven thousand -nine hundred and fifty-three only) as
arrears as per new scales under Majithia Wage Board Award. He has
also claimed interest at the rate of 18%.
5. Notice of the statement of claim was issued to the management.
The management put up appearance and filed Written Statement. In
the written Statement, the management has taken following defense:
I. The management is exempted from payment of arrears
under proviso to clause 21 of the Majithia Wage Board
Award.
II. The management falls under class-VII of clause 6 of
Majithia Wage Board Award by virtue of explanation (b) to
clause 6 of the Majithia Wage Board Award. And,
III. Wages claimed by the claimant are not based on any
document.
LIR No.1458/19 Bibek Bhattacharjee versus M/s The Statesman Ltd. Page 3 of 13
6. Vide order dated 18.02.2020, following issues were framed for
adjudication:
"1. Whether the claimant is entitled to the recovery of the
amount as claimed for? O.P.W.
2. Whether the management is exempted from making the
payment to the claimant as per the recommendations of Majithia
Wage Board under Clause 21 as claimed? O.P.M.
3. Relief."
WORKMAN'S EVIDENCE
7. Sole witness examined on behalf of the workman is the
workman himself. Workman Sh. Bibek Bhattacharjee appeared in
witness box as WW1/1 and tendered his affidavit in evidence
Ex.WW1/A. He relied upon following documents:
i. Copy of Majithia wage Board award Ex. WW1/1,
ii. Copy of Order dated 19.08.2015 passed by Dy. Labour
Commissioner-cum-Authority under Working Journalist Act
Ex. WW1/2,
iii. Copy of Judgment dated 18.11.2019 passed in WP(C)
No.9497/15 Ex. WW1/3 and
iv. Calculation chart of arrears Ex.WW1/4.
MANAGEMENT'S EVIDENCE (ME)
08. Vide order dated 26.09.2022, right of the management to lead
evidence was closed as it failed to produce any witness for
examination. However, vide order dated 25.11.22, the management
was granted one more opportunity to lead evidence.
09. The management examined two witnesses in its favour.
MW1 Sh. Ravindra Kumar was Editor and Managing Director
of the management establishment. He tendered his evidence by way
LIR No.1458/19 Bibek Bhattacharjee versus M/s The Statesman Ltd. Page 4 of 13
of affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied upon following documents:
i. Copy of receipt dated 15.02.2017 and other documents
relating to gratuity Ex. MW1/1 (colly),
ii. Recommendations of Majithia Wage Board Ex. MW1/2
iii. Certificate dated 15.11.2024 by Ford Rhodes Parks & Co.
Ex. WW1/3 (de-exhibited and Marked 'A') and
iv. Balance Sheet for the years 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and
2009-2010 Ex. MW1/4 (colly).
MW2 Sh. Rupesh Churiwala is a Chartered Accountant. He
tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. MW2/A. In his
Affidavit Ex. MW2/A, the witness has opined that the consistent
financial losses, particularly cash losses, suffered by the management
are not only heavy but are also crippling.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
10. Arguments have been advanced at length on behalf of both thee
parties. The parties have reiterated the fact in their pleadings.
ISSUE WISE FINDINGS
11. Issue No.1 and Issue No.2 are connected inasmuch as the
finding on issue No.1 is dependent upon the finding on Issue No.2.
Hence Issue No2 shall be decided first.
12. Issue No.2: Whether the management is exempted from making
the payment to the claimant as per the recommendations of Majithia
Wage Board under Clause 21 as claimed? O.P.M.
12.1 This issue has already been decided by Hon'ble High Court of
LIR No.1458/19 Bibek Bhattacharjee versus M/s The Statesman Ltd. Page 5 of 13
Delhi in The Statesman Limited Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi &
Ors. WP(C) 10534/2015 & CM APPL. 32773/2017 (Judgment dated
18.11.2019) as affirmed in The Statesman Limited Versus Govt. of
NCT of Delhi & Ors. LPA 778/2023& CM APPL. 61886/2023
(Judgment dated 29.05.2024)
In WP(C)10534/2015(supra), single judge bench of Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi has held as follows:
29. It has firstly been sought to be contended, by the petitioner,
that it was not extended any opportunity, by the competent
authority, to make submissions on the Class in which it would
fall. The somewhat surprising stand, adopted by the petitioner in
this regard, is that it was under the impression that the
Competent Authority would first decide the issue of the
applicability, of Clause 21 of the Majithia Wage Board Award,
to the petitioner, and would, thereafter, extend the petitioner a
further opportunity to argue on its classifiability. A bare perusal
st
of the record of proceedings dated 21 July, 2015 in WP (C)
9497/ 2015 and 19th August, 2015 in WP (C) 10534/ 2015
clearly belies this submission. At the conclusion of the said
record of proceedings, it is clearly noted that both parties
submitted, before the Competent Authority, that they had
nothing further to add. These proceedings stand signed by the
representatives of the parties and, in fact, the petitioner was
represented by learned counsel. There is nothing, in the
impugned orders, which could convey the impression that the
Competent Authority was deciding any preliminary issue, and
reserving the right, to the petitioner, to argue on other aspects, at
a later stage. In view thereof, it cannot be said that the Competent
Authority has denied, to the petitioner, any adequate
opportunity, while arriving at its finding that the petitioner
establishment was liable to be classified under Class V. Ex facie,
this submission appears to be an afterthought.
30. Though the objection, of the petitioner, to the said finding of
the Competent Authority, as contained in the impugned order
dated 21st July, 2015 in WP (C) 9497/ 2015 and 19th August,
2015 in WP (C) 10534/ 2015 is liable to be rejected even on this
score, I find the submission to be bereft of merit, as well. It has
specifically been pointed out, by Respondent No. 3, in its written
submission, that, on the basis of the figures contained in the balance sheets of the petitioner for the relevant years, its advertisement revenue constituted 67%, 60% and 65% of its LIR No.1458/19 Bibek Bhattacharjee versus M/s The Statesman Ltd. Page 6 of 13 gross revenue. This submission has not been sought to be traversed, in the written submissions filed by the petitioner. That apart, the submission also appears to be borne out from the figures contained in the relevant balance sheets of Respondent No. 3 during the aforesaid three years, as placed on record before the Competent Authority. No occasion, therefore, arises, for this Court to interfere therewith.
31. The submission of Mr. Bansal that the competent Authority had erred in classifying the petitioner establishment under Class V, in the classification contained in Clause 6 of the Majithia Wage Board Award, is, therefore rejected.
xxx xxx xxx
33. The Supreme Court has, in the paragraphs extracted hereinabove, clarified, in unmistakable terms, that the question of whether any particular establishment had, or had not, suffered, ―heavy cash lossesǁ could not be decided on the test of whether the requirement of payment of revised wages, in terms of the Award, would result in financial difficulties, to the establishment, or not. The Supreme Court contradistinguished the concept of ―heavy cash lossesǁ, with that of mere financial difficulties. Para 28 of the report in Avishek Raja8 makes it clear that an establishment could be treated as having suffered ―heavy cash losses, during the years 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 - which constitute the three relevant years immediately preceding the publication of the Majithia Wage Board Award - only if the losses suffered by the establishment were (i) crippling and (ii) consistent over the years specified in the Award, i.e. over the aforesaid three financial years 2008- 2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011.
34. Neither of these requirements, in my view, stands satisfied in the case of the petitioner-establishment.
35. A bare glance at the certificate of M/s Ford, Rhodes, Parks and Company, dated 16th July, 2014 indicates that the petitioner had actually earned profits during the years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, of ₹ 35,60,000/- and ₹ 7,41,000/- respectively. It was precisely for this reason that the accumulated losses of the petitioner have fallen, from ₹ 2,00,14,000/- in 2008-2009, to ₹ 1,64,14,000/- in 2009-2010 and ₹ 1,56,13,000/- in 2010-2011.
36. The reliance, by the petitioner, on the fact that it was suffering accumulated losses, during the years 2008-2009, 2009- 2010 and 2010- 2011, is, in my view, thoroughly misplaced and ex facie contrary to the terms of the Majithia Wage Board Award. The test, postulated in the Award, to insulate an establishment from the requirement of paying revised wages, is LIR No.1458/19 Bibek Bhattacharjee versus M/s The Statesman Ltd. Page 7 of 13 not one of accumulated losses, but of continuous losses over the three years preceding implementation of the award. Inasmuch as the terms of the Majithia Wage Board Award, have, in toto, received the imprimatur of the Supreme Court, first in ABP Private Ltd1, and thereafter in Avishek Raja8 , it is not open to any authority to revisit the terms of the Award, or adopt, in interpreting the terms thereof, an interpretation which would dilute their effect. The Majithia Wage Board Award was clear and categorical in fixing continuous losses over the three years preceding the implementation of the award as the indicium to determine whether a particular newspaper establishment could be spared the rigour of paying revised wages in terms thereof. It is not open to this Court, or any other executive or judicial Authority in the territory of India, to alter or change these terms. We would do well to remember that Article 144 of the Constitution of India mandates that ― "all authorities civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court".
xxx xxx xxx
42. For these reasons, I am completely in agreement with the finding, of the Competent Authority in the impugned orders, dated 21st July, 2015 and 19th August, 2015, that the petitioner was not entitled to immunity from the requirement of paying revised wages to its workmen in terms of the Majithia Wage Board Award, on the basis of the proviso to Clause 21 thereof.
12.2 In LPA 778/2023& CM APPL. 61886/2023 (supra), Division bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has noted as follows:
55. Qua the "huge cash losses", this Court finds that there are no such losses. Balance Sheet/s and/ or ITR/s showing no profit, more so, hitherto since the basic profit and loss account has been belied and negated, cannot form the basis of the appellant having suffered any such "huge financial losses" in any manner whatsoever. Taking that into account, the appellant certainly cannot be allowed to build a mountain of a mole at this stage by way of the present proceedings before this Court.
56. Lastly, this Court is in complete consonance with the deliberations and findings rendered by the learned Single Judge LIR No.1458/19 Bibek Bhattacharjee versus M/s The Statesman Ltd. Page 8 of 13 in both the impugned judgment and/ or the impugned review order under challenge. Therefore, there is no reason, cause or occasion for interfering with either of the decisions of the learned Single Judge.
12.3 In view of categorical findings of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the issue is decided against the management. The management is not entitled for any exemption from payment as per clause 21 of the Majithia Wage Board Award.
13. Issue No.1: Whether the claimant is entitled to the recovery of the amount as claimed for? O.P.W.
13.1 It is admitted fact that the workman was under employment of the management and he was covered under the Working Journalist and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955. In his cross-examination, MW- 1 has stated that "it is correct that the workman is covered under the Working Journalist and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955."
13.2 It is also admitted fact that the details of wages as mentioned in the claim are based on personal knowledge of the workman. In his cross-examination, the workman (WW1) has stated as follows:
"It is wrong to suggest that the employees were getting salary slip every month. Vol. management had stopped issuing salary slip w.e.f. 1995. The details of the wages as given by me in the claim is based on my personal knowledge."
13.3 Even though the workman has failed to prove, by way of documentary evidence, his entitlement for wages claimed, the LIR No.1458/19 Bibek Bhattacharjee versus M/s The Statesman Ltd. Page 9 of 13 management cannot be absolved of its responsibilities. The management has not come forward with its own calculations even though it was custodian of all the records being employer. It is evident from the record that the failure on the part of the workman is attributable to the conduct of the management. The workman had filed an application under Section 11(3)(b) of I.D. Act for production of documents. Vide order dated 06.12.2021, the application was partially allowed with following direction:
"However, salary slips of the workman from 11.10.2011 till his retirement and details of promotion / upgradation provided to the workman by the management as recommended by Majithia Wage Board and necessary record in above respect to be filed by the management within 15 days from tomorrow with advance copy to the workman both in soft and hard copy and within the same period same be filed on record."
Despite specific order of the court, the management did not place the documents on record.
13.4 Genuineness of order dated 19.08.15 Ex.WW1/2 is not in dispute. Vide this order, the competent authority had disposed of an application under section 17(1) of the Working Journalist Act. The workman was one of the applicants in the application. While disposing of the application, the competent authority had held as under:
"17. The Respondent management has disputed the calculations of arrears of workmen as it falls in Class VI in place of Class V. Keeping in view as detailed above that management falls in class V, calculation made by the workmen as given in Annexure A taking Class of management as V, is correct which is given hereunder:LIR No.1458/19 Bibek Bhattacharjee versus M/s The Statesman Ltd. Page 10 of 13
S. No. Name Designation Salary as Total arrears per w.e.f.
Majithia 11/11/11
Wage Board To
31/03/2014
1. Bibek Bhattacharjee Proof Reader 29640 4,27,610
2 Pradeep Saigal Telephone 29640 4,20,000
Operator
3 Ravi Babu Garg Officer EDP 29640 4,47,500
4 V.K. Sharma Officer 29640 3,32,000
5 Rabinder Singh Telephone 29640 4,18,000
Operator
6 Kailash Chandra Juyal PTS Officer 31338 4,34,310
7 Ashok Kumar Gupta Officer 29640 4,30,600
Collection
8 Bishamber Prasad Officer 31338 4,40,000
9 Inderjit Chaudhary Advt. Officer 29640 4,18,000
(Retd.)
Total 37,69,420
Now therefore, I hereby direct the management of The Statesman Ltd. to make payment of the amounts due to the individual newspaper employees, Sh. Bibek Bhattacharjee & 8 Ors. as mentioned above totaling to Rs. 37,69,420 (Rs. Thirty Seven Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousands Four Hundred and Twenty Rupees Only) towards arrear from 11/11/11 to 31/03/2014 within 30 days from the date of this order failing which recovery certificate will be issued in this regard u/s 17 (1) of the Act against the management."
13.5 In WP(C) 10534/2015 & CM APPL (supra), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has upheld the order of competent authority dated 19.08.2015. It has been held as follows:
"44. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that there is no merit in these writ petitions, and that the challenge, by the petitioner, to the impugned Award dated 21st July, 2015 in WP (C) 9497/ 2015 and 19th August, 2015 in WP (C) 10534/2015 of the Competent Authority is completely bereft of substance.
45. Resultantly, these writ petitions are dismissed.LIR No.1458/19 Bibek Bhattacharjee versus M/s The Statesman Ltd. Page 11 of 13
46 As a consequence, the Respondent No. 3 Union would be entitled to payment of the revised wages, in terms of the impugned order dated 21st July 2015 in WP (C) 9497/2015 and 19th August, 2015 in WP (C) 10534/2015, of the Competent Authority...."
13.6 Since Order of the Competent Authority dated 19.08.15 Ex.WW1/2 has been upheld by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) 10534/2015 & CM APPL (supra) which in turn has been affirmed in LPA 778/2023& CM APPL. 61886/2023 (supra) and issue No.1 has been decided against the management, the management is duty bound to pay the arrears of revised wages to the workman as per his entitlement in the light of Majithia Wage Board Award and in compliance of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in WPC No.246/2011(Supra). The issue is accordingly answered.
14. Issue No.3: Relief?
The management shall pay arrears of wages to the workman as per his entitlement after calculating the same, within 30 days from the date of publication of the Award, failing which the workman shall be entitled to interest on the eligible amount at the rate of 8% per annum.
15. In the light of the issue wise findings, the reference is answered as follows:
"The management is not entitled for any exemption from payment as per Clause-21 of the Majithia Wage Board. The workman is entitled to wage arrears, for the period 01.04.2014 to 31.12.2014, in terms of Majithia Wage Board Award."
16. A copy of Award be sent to the Competent Authority/ Govt.
LIR No.1458/19 Bibek Bhattacharjee versus M/s The Statesman Ltd. Page 12 of 13of NCT of Delhi for publication as per rules.
File be sent to record room for consignment after due compliance.
Pronounced in open Court today i.e. 06.07.2024 (Sujit Saurabh) Presiding Officer Labour Court-IX RADC, New Delhi 06.07.2024 LIR No.1458/19 Bibek Bhattacharjee versus M/s The Statesman Ltd. Page 13 of 13