Delhi District Court
Rajiv Ranjan Sinha vs . The Business Bhaskar & Ors. on 19 May, 2023
Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.
LIR No.1368/2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI TARUN YOGESH
PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURT - 08
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS : NEW DELHI
In the matter of :
Name of Workmen LIR No. CNR Number
1) Shri Rajiv Ranjan Sinha 1368/18 DLCT13-002408-2018
S/o Late P.P. Diwana
R/o Flat No.12, Siddharth
Niketan, Sector-14,
Kaushambi, Ghaziabad,
U.P.
2) Shri Gaurav Kumar 1503/18 DLCT13-002803-2018
S/o Sri Samundra Singh
R/o RNU, Radio Kashmir-
Jammu,
Panchtirthi Road, Jammu
3) Shri Randhir Singh Rana 1504/18 DLCT13-002805-2018
S/o Sri Karan Singh
R/o Village & P.O. Sohati,
Tehsil - Khar Khoda, District
Sonipat,
Haryana - 131402
4) Shri Shashi Kumar Jha 1505/18 DLCT13-002807-2018
S/o Late Sri Rudal Jha
R/o F1, House No.92, Sector
6,
Vaishali, Ghaziabad,
U.P., Pin - 101012
Page 1 of 52
Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.
LIR No.1368/2018
5) Shri Sachin Yadav 1506/18 DLCT13-002802-2018
S/o Sri Subhai Yadav
R/o 2396/D7, 3rd Floor,
Shadipur, Mandir Wali Gali,
New Delhi - 110008
6) Shri Neeraj Swamy 1507/18 DLCT13-002804-2018
S/o Late Mahesh Chand
Swamy
R/o House No.3502, Second
Floor,
Nicholson Road, Morigate,
Delhi - 110006
7) Shri Deepak Kumar 1508/18 DLCT13-002806-2018
Mandal
S/o Sri Haradhan Mandal
R/o 42-D, Express-View
Apartment,
Sector-93 (Super MIG),
Noida-201304 (UP)
8) Shri Krishna Kant 1509/18 DLCT13-002808-2018
Kulshrestha
R/o E-608, Supertech
Livingston,
Crossing Republic,
Ghaziabad,
Pin.201016, U.P.
9) Shri Sanjay Gupta 1510/18 DLCT13-002801-2018
S/o Sri Arun Kumar Gupta
R/o C-1/14, New Kondli,
Near Bharti Public School,
Mayur Vihar - 3,
Delhi
Page 2 of 52
Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.
LIR No.1368/2018
10) Shri Ratan Singh Sekhawat 1511/18 DLCT13-002798-2018
S/o Sri Umed Singh
Shekhawat
R/o 28, Nehru Nagar, Ajmer
Road, (Behind KCC Nagar),
Jaipur - 302024,
Rajasthan
11) Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh 1512/18 DLCT13-002799-2018
S/o Shri Jai Prakash Singh
R/o VOP Todarpur,
Rajatalab,
Varanasi, U.P.
12) Shri Vishwas Tiwari 1513/18 DLCT13-002800-2018
S/o Shri Surya Narain Tiwari
R/o E-323, Gali No.8, East
Vinod Nagar,
East Delhi - 110091
....Workmen
Versus
The Business Bhaskar Newspaper
(a unit of Dainik Bhaskar Group)
Through its Chairman/Director/Executive Director,
M/s DB Corp. Ltd., 402, 4th Floor,
Ratan Jyoti Building, Rajender Place,
New Delhi - 110008
Also At:
(A) M/s DB Corp. Ltd., 105, First Floor,
INS Building, Rafi Marg,
Page 3 of 52
Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.
LIR No.1368/2018
New Delhi - 110001
(B) M/s DB Corp. Ltd., 1102, 11th Floor,
Ansal Tower, Near Nehru Place Metro Station,
Nehru Place, New Delhi - 110019
(C) M/s DB Corp. Ltd., 207, 2nd Floor,
Akash Deep Building,
Near Barakhamba Metro Station,
New Delhi
....Management
Date of institution : 06.07.2018
Date of Award : 19.05.2023
AWAR D
1. Shri Rajiv Ranjan Sinha & Ors. being employees of
Business Bhashkar, a newspaper owned and published by D.B.
Corp. Ltd. have filed separate claim seeking interim relief,
arrears of wages and other dues as per Majithia Wage Board
Award notified by the Ministry of Labour & Employment,
Government of India vide S.O. 2532(E) dated 11.11.2011. Details
mentioned in respective claim viz. employee code, group of
employee, revised scale of wages and outstanding dues claimed
by newspaper employees are indicated below in tabulated form:
Page 4 of 52
Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.
LIR No.1368/2018
TABLE '1'
Sl. Name Employee Post/ Group of Period of Service Revised scale of Amount
No. Code Employee wages of
Working
Journalists:
Table 1 w.r.t.
Newspaper
Establishments
1 Rajiv 13896 Group 3 i) Chief Sub- 19000 ARI (4%) Rs.53,63,317/-
Ranjan Editor from - 41700
Sinha Chief Sub- May 2008 to
Editor/ Deputy March 2012 and
News Editor
ii) Deputy News
Editor from
April 2012 till
resignation on
30.04.2014.
2 Gaurav 18435 Group 5 Correspondent 15000 ARI (4%) Rs.29,04,959/-
Kumar from 01.04.2010 - 32900
Correspondent till resignation
on 21.08.2013.
3 Randhir 14287 Group 3 Correspondent/ 19000 ARI (4%) Rs.38,12,608/-
Singh Rana Principal - 41700
Correspondent/ Correspondent
Principal from 10.09.2008
Correspondent
to 30.04.2014.
4 Shashi 13952 Group 2 Special 22000 ARI (4%) Rs.46,99,887/-
Kumar Jha Special Correspondent/ - 48300
Correspondent/ News Editor
News Editor from 01.06.2008
to 30.04.2014.
5 Sachin 18436 Group 5 Correspondent 15000 ARI (4%) Rs.28,82,958/-
Yadav from 01.04.2011 - 32900
Correspondent to 31.07.2013.
Page 5 of 52
Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.
LIR No.1368/2018
6 Neeraj 13987 Group 4 Senior Web 17000 ARI (4%) Rs.37,96,583/-
Swamy Designer from - 37300
Senior Web 11.06.2008 to
Designer 30.04.2014.
7 Deepak 13887 Group 3 & Worked as Chief 19000 ARI (4%) Rs.39,88,515/-
Kumar Group 2 Sub-Editor from - 41700
Mandal 10.05.2008 till
30.11.2012 and AND
as Assistant
22000 ARI (4%)
Editor - 48300
from 01.12.2012
till resignation
on 06.08.2013.
8 Krishna 13890 Group 3 Deputy News 19000 ARI (4%) Rs.53,51,028/-
Kant Editor/News - 41700
Kulshrestha Deputy News Editor from
Editor/ News 10.05.2008 to
Editor
30.04.2014.
9 Sanjay 13910 Group 5 i) Worked as 15000 ARI (4%) Rs.41,81,548/-
Gupta Photo Photo Journalist - 32900
Journalist from 17.05.2008
to 30.04.2014.
10 Ratan Singh 13885 Group 4 i) Worked as 17000 ARI (4%) Rs.26,18,314/-
Shekhawat Senior Sub- - 37300
Senior Sub- Editor from
Editor 09.05.2008 till
31.07.2013.
11 Bhanu 16727 Group 5 i) Worked as 15000 ARI (4%) Rs.31,91,816/-
Pratap Singh Designer from - 32900
Designer 23.08.2010 to
30.04.2014.
12 Vishwas 24185 Group 4 i) Senior 17000 ARI (4%) Rs.19,67,672/-
Tiwari Designer from - 37300
Senior 07.12.2012 to
Designer 30.04.2014.
Page 6 of 52
Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.
LIR No.1368/2018
BACKGROUND
2. Brief description of facts leading to filing of present batch of claim by newspaper employees is narrated below:-
(a) Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as the Working Journalist Act) was enacted by Government of India in 1955 to regulate the conditions of service of working journalists and other persons employed in newspaper establishment and two Wage Boards were constituted by the Central Government under Section 9 and 13C of the Act 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 under the Chairmanship of Justice (Retd.) Gurbax Rai Majithia who headed both Wage Boards as their common Chairman.
(b) The Majithia Wage Board submitted its recommendations on 31.12.2010 which was accepted by the Central Government on 25.10.2011 and notification to the said effect under Section 12 of the Act was published by the Ministry of Labour & Employment, Govt. of India vide S.O.2532(E) dated 11.11.2011.
(c) The recommendations of Majithia Wage Board were Page 7 of 52 Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.
LIR No.1368/2018challenged under Article 32 of the Constitution before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition (Civil) No.246 of 2011 and similar Writ Petitions which were dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 07.02.2014 holding :
"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.
(d) Applications apropos non-implementation of recommendations of Majithia Wage Board were submitted before Labour Authority PUSA, Delhi on 18.06.2015 but nothing concrete came out during negotiations which lasted for around three months and Contempt Petition No.38 of 2015 was thereafter filed before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which was disposed vide order dated 19.06.2017 holding - 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 Page 8 of 52 Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.LIR No.1368/2018
be implemented in full. Hon'ble Apex Court also held that "newspaper employee" as defined in Section 2(c) of the Working Journalists Act would be entitled to receive revised scale of wages and variable pay as approved and notified by the Central Government under Section 12 of the Act besides directing that all complaints with regard to non-implementation of the Majithia Wage Board or otherwise be dealt with in terms of the mechanism provided under Section 17 of the Act.
(e) Claimants, thereafter, approached Labour Authority under Section 17 of the Act for redressal of grievance and Deputy Labour Commissioner, Central District, Employment Exchange Building, Pusa Campus, New Delhi has referred the dispute setting out following terms of reference vide F. No. F-24(06) WJA/ CD/88- 98 and 106/2017/01 dated 02.07.2018:
I. "Whether the claimants Shri Rajiv Ranjan Sinha, Gaurav Kumar, Krishan Kant Kulshrestha, Shashi Kumar Jha, Neeraj Swamy, Vishwas Tiwari, Bhanu Pratap Singh (details as per annexure 'A') who were last employed/posted at Jaipur in the Business Bhaskar Newspaper - a Unit of Dainik Bhaskar Group can file application under Section 17 of the Act before the Authority - GNCT of Delhi seeking interim relief, arrears of wages Page 9 of 52 Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.LIR No.1368/2018
and other dues for the Majithia recommendation period applicable to them starting from their tenure in Delhi till their separation from Jaipur as per Majithia Wage Board Recommendations given 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?"
II. "Whether all the claimants - Shri Rajiv Ranjan Sinha & 11 Ors. (details as per annexure 'A') are entitled to claim amount on account of interim relief, arrears of wages and other dues, as per Majithia Wage Board Recommendations given 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?"
III. "Whether all the claimants - Shri Rajiv Ranjan Sinha & 11 Ors. (details as per annexure 'A') are still entitled to Majithia Wage Board recommendations given under The Working Journalist and Other Newspaper Employees (Condition of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, even after receiving full and final settlement/payment from management and if so, what directions Page 10 of 52 Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.
LIR No.1368/2018are necessary in this regard?"
IV. "Whether claimants - Shri Rajiv Ranjan Sinha, Ratan Singh Shekhawat, Neeraj Swamy, Randhir Singh Rana, Shashi Kumar Jha, Krishan Kant Kulshrestha, Deepak Kumar Mandal (details as per annexure 'A') falls under the exclusion provision as per Section 2(f) of 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?"
PLEADINGS
3. As averred by claimants, publication of 'Business Bhaskar' was started in May, 2008 from Delhi and seven employees namely Shri Rajiv Ranjan Sinha, Shri Gaurav Kumar, Shri Krishan Kant Kulshrestha, Shri Shashi Kumar Jha, Shri Neeraj Swamy, Shri Vishwas Tiwari and Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh were transferred to Jaipur in August 2013, around nine months before closure of the Business Bhaskar Edition, after running the venture from Delhi for five years and three months whereas remaining five employees namely Shri Randhir Singh Rana, Shri Sachin Yadav, Shri Deepak Kumar Mandal, Shri Sanjay Gupta and Shri Ratan Singh Shekhawat continued to work at 132- Tribhuvan Complex, Ishwar Nagar, Mathura Road, New Delhi. It is submitted that claimants having resigned/continued in service Page 11 of 52 Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.
LIR No.1368/2018till closure of newspaper edition are entitled to receive arrears of revised wages and other dues as 'Business Bhaskar' was being published from Delhi at the time of joining the newspaper and also at the time of publication of S.O.2532(E) dated 11.11.2011.
4. Amount sought as arrears of wages and other dues is claimed on the basis of (a) classification of D.B. Corp. Ltd. as Class-I newspaper establishment; (b) grouping of working journalist in newspaper establishments as per Schedule 1A of S.O.2532(E) AND (c) revised scale of wages - recommending basic-pay of newspaper employee to rise by around 2.90 to 3.20 times in respect of newspaper establishments falling under Classes I to IV where 35% of increase as a result of variable pay is recommended. It is submitted that Ministry of Labour & Employment in its order dated 11.11.2011 has alluded to twin objectives of the concept of variable pay to be introduced for all employees working in newspaper establishment which will be specified percentage of the basic pay (35% in claimants' case) drawn by an employee in the newspaper industry and other allowances including HRA, transport allowance, leave travel allowance, etc. will be computed by taking the sum total of the
(a) revised basic pay AND (b) variable pay applicable to the employee. It is submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while dealing with the concept of variable pay has taken the view that said relief has been incorporated in the Majithia Wage Board in order to give fair and equitable treatment to employees of newspapers and no question of withholding the said benefit by Page 12 of 52 Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.
LIR No.1368/2018taking any other view with regard to variable pay can arise. A reading of the relevant para of the Award would show that the concept of variable pay which was introduced in the Award stems from grade-pay contained in the report of the 6th Pay Commission and was intended to bring working journalist and non-journalist employees covered by the Working Journalists Act at par with Central Government Employees to the extent possible.
5. Shri Rajiv Ranjan Sinha & Ors. have filed claim seeking arrears of revised scale of wages and dues by contending that amount due as per recommendations of Majithia Wage Board were not included in the full and final settlement effected with respondent and claimants cannot be deprived of arrears of revised scale of wages and interim relief @ 30% of the basic wage up to 10th November, 2011.
6. Finally, it is submitted that claimants do not fall under exclusion clause (i) and (ii) of section 2(f) of the Working Journalists Act as Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India in its order dated 11.11.2011 has clarified that newspaper employee means working journalist or non- working journalist or both. Moreover, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its order dated 19.06.2017 has held that there is nothing either in the provisions of the Act or in the terms of the Wage Board Award to restrict its benefits to regular employees and not contractual employees in view of definition of "newspaper employee", "working journalist" and "non-journalist newspaper employees" as defined in Section 2(c), 2(f) and 2(dd) of the Act.
Page 13 of 52Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.
LIR No.1368/2018Claimants, in addition, have alluded to order of the Ministry of Labour & Employment to the effect that - any newspaper employee employed with any designation different from those enumerated in the schedules but doing the same or similar nature of job, of any group in the schedule, shall be deemed to be a working journalist in that group.
7. It is submitted that Dainik Bhaskar Group being profit making company having total revenue in excess of Rs.1,000 crores and net profit more that Rs.182 crores is Class-I newspaper establishment as per classification made by the Board and claimants are entitled to receive interim relief, arrears of wages and other dues along with (a) compensation for delayed period; (b) Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation cost; (c) Rs.5,00,000/- as abrupt closure impact cost together with interest @ 18% for delayed period.
8. Respondent Business Bhaskar, a unit of Dainik Bhaskar Group has contested the claims seeking their dismissal inter alia on following grounds:
i. Claimants appointed in different posts are covered under exception (i) and (ii) of Section 2(f) of the Working Journalists Act as they were engaged in supervisory/managerial capacity having a team working under them and are not entitled to benefits as recommended by the Majithia Wage Board. ii. Claimants employed in supervisory/managerial capacity are not covered within definition of Page 14 of 52 Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.LIR No.1368/2018
workman under Section 2(s) of I.D. Act, 1947. iii. S.O.2532(E) was notified on 11.11.2011 and claimants are not entitled to arrears from 2008 to 2011 in view of order dated 07.02.2014 passed of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in W.P.(C) 246/2011.
iv. D.B. Corp Ltd. being company constitutes the entire group whereas Business Bhaskar being part of D.B. Corp Ltd. is a separate entity with separate registration number and balance sheet. Turnover of Rs.1,000 crores as indicated in the claim is the turnover of the entire group whereas Business Bhaskar has been closed in August, 2013. v. Claimants Shri Rajiv Ranjan Sinha, Shri Gaurav Kumar, Shri Krishan Kant Kulshrestha, Shri Shashi Kumar Jha, Shri Neeraj Swamy, Shri Vishwas Tiwari and Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh being transferred had joined duty at Jaipur and Labour Court at Jaipur would have jurisdiction to entertain their claim.
vi. Statement of claim have not been filed in prescribed format and basis of computation of amount has not been indicated.
9. Averments in the claim have been denied in corresponding paras of reply on merit and issues were settled as per Term No.1 to Term No.4 of the reference order after rejoinder and Page 15 of 52 Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.
LIR No.1368/2018completion of pleadings.
EVIDENCE ADDUCED ON RECORD
10. Shri Rajiv Ranjan Sinha and others have tendered their affidavits and relied upon following documents in their examination-in-chief:
i. Report dated 25.10.2011 of Majithia Wage Board (60 page) Mark W1;
ii. Order dated 07.02.2014 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in W.P.(C) No. 246/2011 Mark W2; iii. Order dated 19.06.2017 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Contempt Petition Mark W3. iv. Reference under Section 10(1)(c) of I.D. Act dated 02.07.2018 passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner, Central District, Delhi Mark W4; v. Chart prepared by claimant as per Majithia Wage Board Mark W5;
vi. Formula for preparing the chart Mark W6; vii. Copy of full and final payment not including dues as per Majithia Wage Board Mark W7;
viii. Document including appointment letter, salary slip, promotion letter, transfer letter and resignation letter Mark W8, AND ix. Document showing revenue of D.B. Corp Ltd.
Mark W9.
11. Their cross-examination have been recorded and Page 16 of 52 Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.
LIR No.1368/2018workman's evidence was closed.
12. Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Chief Manager, H.R. Department examined as MW1 has relied upon:
i. Appointment letter issued to the claimant; ii. Transfer letter (of seven employees transferred to Jaipur) and iii. Calculation sheet prepared by management.
13. Cross-examination of MW1 was recorded and management evidence was closed.
SUBMISSIONS
14. Shri Soumyajit Pani has addressed his submissions urging the Court to allow claim of newspaper employees seeking (a) interim rates of wage @ 30% of basic salary AND (b) arrears of revised scale of wages & dues by holding D.B. Corp Ltd. as 'Class-I newspaper establishment' with gross revenue more than Rs.1,000/- crores.
15. Shri Rahul Malhotra for respondent, per contra, has vehemently argued for dismissal of claims inter alia on following grounds:
(a) Claim filed before Labour Court are not maintainable in view of sections 10 & 7-A read with Third Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947;
(b) Shri Rajiv Ranjan Sinha & Ors. having resigned/ continued in service till closure of 'Business Bhaskar' have received full and final amount and no demand for Page 17 of 52 Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.LIR No.1368/2018
revised scale of wages was raised by the claimants from 11.11.2011 till 30.04.2014;
(c) 'Business Bhaskar' being separate entity with separate registration number and balance sheet was 'Class-VI newspaper establishment' till Shri Rajiv Ranjan Sinha and six others were working in Delhi and 'Class-IV newspaper establishment' after they were transferred to Jaipur - classification being based on the revenues of newspaper establishment at Delhi and Jaipur as demonstrated in Ex.MW1/3;
(d) Shri Rajiv Ranjan Sinha & Ors. had executed full and final settlement without any demur or objection and are deemed to have waived their right to demand any further amount after full and final satisfaction at the time of resignation.
(e) Shri Rajiv Ranjan Sinha & Ors. were drawing salary and dues higher than the amount recommended by the Majithia Wage Board and continued to avail more favourable benefits by virtue of section 16 of the Working Journalists Act;
(f) No document/proof has been brought on record to prove revenue of management more than Rs.1,000/- crores and Mark-W9 referred by claimants is not admissible in evidence.
16. Respondent's counsel has relied upon following judgments on the point of burden of proof and admissibility of evidence.
Page 18 of 52Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.
LIR No.1368/2018(a) Rangammal Vs. Kuppuswami & Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 220;
(b) Jagmail Singh& Ors. Vs. Karamjit Singh & Ors. (2020) 5 SCC 178;
(c) Virtus Dordrecht D.V. Vs. Vikram Bhargava 212(2014) DLT 601;
(d) Sudhir Engineering Co. Vs. Nitco Roadways Ltd. 1995 (34) DRJ 86.
ANALYSIS
17. Respondent's contention disputing jurisdiction of Labour Court to entertain claim filed by newspaper employees has to be addressed before adverting to terms of reference set out by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Central District, Pusa Campus, New Delhi under section 17(2) of the Working Journalists Act.
18. It is submitted that newspaper employees seeking revised scale of wages and dues as per S.O. 2532(E) dated 11.11.2011 should approach 'industrial tribunal' by alluding to sections 10 & 7A read with Third Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
19. Section 17 of the Working Journalists Act provides for recovery of money due to a newspaper employee from his employer. The statutory provision reads 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 Page 19 of 52 Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.LIR No.1368/2018
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)."
Page 20 of 52Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.
LIR No.1368/201820. Paras '4' and '8' of the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in D.B. Corp Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2018 SCC OnLine 2756 setting out the scope and ambit of the provision being relevant are extracted below:
"A plain reading of Section 17(1) clearly suggests that the Section provides for a machinery for recovery of money due under the Act to a newspaper employee from his employer. Upon an application made to the State Government for such recovery, if the State Government or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied as to any amount so due, it issues a certificate for that amount to the Collector, whereupon the Collector proceeds to recover that amount in the same manner as arrears of land revenue. If any question arises as to the amount due to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government is empowered, either on its own motion or upon application made to it, to refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the Industrial Disputes Act or any other corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in the State. The decision of the Labour Court on such reference is then forwarded to the State Government, which made the reference, whereupon the amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in sub-Page 21 of 52
Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.LIR No.1368/2018
section (1). This comprises of a complete code for recovery of money or a composite scheme whenever dues are claimed by a newspaper employee from his employer. Sub- section (1) of Section 17 is in the nature of a mode of recovery, as the words "without prejudice to any other mode of recovery"
used therein suggest. The State Government or its delegate issues a certificate in respect of "amount due" as a mode of recovery. In other words, sub-section (1) contains procedure to recover the amount due and not for determination of the question as to what amount is due. If there is any dispute as to what amount is due, the State Government or its delegate has to make a reference under sub-section (2) of Section 17. If, on a reference, the amount is determined, once again under sub-section (3) of Section 17, the State or its delegate is empowered to issue a certificate referred to in sub-section (1). Thus, non-existence of a dispute concerning the amount or its prior determination are conditions precedent for invocation of Section 17(1) of the Act. So much is clear on principle.
5. xxxx
6. xxxx
7. xxxx
8. Thus, on both principle and authority, the State Government's power under Section Page 22 of 52 Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.
LIR No.1368/201817(1) is merely to issue a certificate of the "amount due", if there is either no dispute as to the amount, which calls for a decision, or an already accomplished adjudication of such dispute. Several questions may arise in an application for recovery. The Act itself provides for obligations of a newspaper establishment and corresponding entitlements of newspaper employees. Question may arise as to the identity of the applicant as a newspaper employee or of the establishment as a newspaper establishment. Wage boards are constituted under the Act for determination of wages and remuneration to working journalists and other newspaper employees. These awards provide for classification of newspaper establishments based on annual gross revenue or other criteria for the purpose of determination of applicable wages. Since different slabs or levels of wages are provided for different categories of employees, questions of correct classification of the establishment or category of the employee-applicant may arise for determination. These will have to be adjudicated by the Labour Court in a reference. These cannot be decided by the State Government or its delegate under Section 17(1). The satisfaction about the dues referred to in Section 17(1) is satisfaction about non-existence of any dispute or question as to the dues and not Page 23 of 52 Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.
LIR No.1368/2018satisfaction about the correctness of the dues. Any question as to the correctness of the dues must be left to the Labour Court, to be decided in a reference, under Section 17(2). Accordingly, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the scheme of Section 17 of the Act is that whenever a claim for recovery of amount due is contested by the employer newspaper establishment and adjudication or determination of the amount due is called for, the State Government or its delegate (in the present case, the Assistant Labour Commissioner) has to stay its hand and necessarily refer it to the Labour Court constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act and await an adjudication by that Court. It is only after such adjudication is made by that Court, that the State or its delegate will have power to issue a recovery certificate."
21. It is abundantly clear from aforesaid exposition of Section 17 of the Working Journalists Act that in case of any dispute as to the amount due to any newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government is empowered, either on its own motion or upon application made to it, to refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the Industrial Disputes Act or other corresponding law related to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in the State. The decision of the Labour Court on such reference is then forwarded to the State Government and it is only after such adjudication that the State or its delegate will Page 24 of 52 Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.
LIR No.1368/2018have power to issue recovery certificate for the amount found due which may be recovered in the manner provided under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists Act.
22. The other plea that no order/judgment can be passed against Directors/individuals of the management is at odds with the scope of reference as Section 17 sub-section (2) of the Act being pari materia to Section 33-C(2) of I.D. Act is limited to computation of pre-existing benefit without venturing into the issue of determining liability of Directors/ individuals of the newspaper establishment.
ISSUE No. I
23. Issue No.I apropos jurisdiction of Government of NCT of Delhi to refer dispute raised by Shri Rajiv Ranjan Sinha & six other newspaper employees who were last employed/posted at Jaipur, Rajasthan has been decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its order dated 27.01.2022 passed in W.P(C) 8550/2018 titled Business Bhaskar Newspaper Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. disposing objections assailing order dated 02.07.2018 in F.No. F-24 (06) WJA/CD/88-98 & 106/2017/01-06 passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner, Central District, Pusa Campus, New Delhi.
24. Paras 25 & 30 of order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi are extracted below:
"25. In the present case, for a substantial period during which the arrears are being Page 25 of 52 Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.
LIR No.1368/2018claimed, the Workmen were working in Delhi which as per the explanation to Section 2(d) of the Working Journalists Act would be the newspaper establishment for the said purpose. The explanation to section 2(d) clarifies that different departments, branches and centres of newspaper establishment shall be treated as parts of the newspaper establishment itself. Thus, the relevant Branch Office of the newspaper establishment in which the newspaper employee is employed would be such office where the employee is employed during the relevant period for which the claim is made and not necessarily the Branch Office where the employee is working on the date when the claim is made. Thus, for the months when the Workmen were serving in Delhi, the State Government would be GNCTD. For a few months for which the wages are being claimed, the Workmen were working in Jaipur as well. Thus, both the Labour Courts in Jaipur and in Delhi would have jurisdiction to deal with the claims/disputes relating to wages of the Workmen. It is the admitted position a substantial portion of the arrears are being claimed for the period when the Workmen were working in Delhi and, thus, the Delhi Branch of the newspaper establishment would also be the relevant Branch Office.
26. xxxxxxxxxxx Page 26 of 52 Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.
LIR No.1368/201827. xxxxxxxxxxx
28. xxxxxxxxxxx
29. xxxxxxxxxxx
30. On a perusal of the above two judgments, it is clear that if a part of the cause of action arises within the territory of the State, the said State Government would be empowered to refer the dispute to the Labour Court. The logical conclusion of this would be that if a part of cause of action arises in more than one State, either of the Governments of the concerned State would be empowered to refer the dispute to the Labour Court so long as there is a direct nexus between the dispute raised and the territory of the said State."
25. FINDING: Govt. of NCT of Delhi being appropriate government is empowered to refer the dispute of Shri Rajiv Ranjan Sinha & six other newspaper employees w.r.t. S.O. 2532(E) dated 11.11.2011.
ISSUE No. IV
26. Section 2(c) defines "newspaper employee" whereas "working journalist" has been defined under Section 2(f) of the Working Journalists Act, 1955. Statutory definitions provided in the Working Journalists Act read as under:
"2(c) "newspaper employee" means any working journalist, and includes any other person employed to do any work in, or in Page 27 of 52 Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.LIR No.1368/2018
relation to, any newspaper establishment;"
"2(f) "working journalist" means a person whose principal avocation is that of a journalist and [who is employed as such, either whole-time or part-time, in, or in relation to, one or more newspaper establishments], and includes an editor, a leader-writer, news editor, sub-editor, feature-writer, copy-tester, reporter, correspondent, cartoonist, news- photographer and proof- reader, but does not include any such person who--
(i) is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or
(ii) being employed in a supervisory capacity, 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;"
27. Respondent's contention that Shri Rajiv Ranjan Sinha & Ors. engaged in supervisory/managerial capacity having a team working under them are covered under exception (i) & (ii) of Section 2(f) the Working Journalists Act has been controverted by claimants by relying upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 1971(3) SCC 96. Following extract of the judgment delivered in Management of Rashtradoot, Jaipur Page 28 of 52 Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.
LIR No.1368/2018VS. Rajasthan Working Journalist Union & Ors., Jaipur is reproduced for reference:
11. Now it is in this state of evidence that the labour court arrived at the conclusion that Dinesh Khare is a working journalist. It was, however, argued on behalf of the appellant that Dinesh Khare does not fall within the definition of working journalist contained in Section 2(f) of the Act. This sub-
mission is difficult to accept. "Working Journalist," according to this definition, means a person whose principal avocation is that of a Journalist and who is employed as such in, or in relation to, any newspaper establishment, and includes an editor, a leader-writer, news editor, subeditor, feature- writer, copy-tester, reporter, correspondent, cartoonist, news-photographer and proofreader, but does not include any such person who--
(i) is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or
(ii) being employed in a supervisory capacity, 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."
12. xxxxxxxxxx
13. It was not denied that Shri Khare had been working as an editor. The other Page 29 of 52 Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.
LIR No.1368/2018functions imputed to him were in addition to his functions as an editor. The question arises, if on this state of the pleadings and evidence as discussed earlier, it can be said that the conclusions of the labour court are either perverse or based on no evidence or are otherwise tainted with such a serious legal infirmity that they should be reopened by us under Article 136 of the Constitution. We are unable to hold that they are. There is legal evidence on the record both oral and documentary, on which the labour court could lawfully base its conclusion. We find no justification for interfering with it."
28. Shri Rahul Malhotra during course of submissions has fairly conceded that no evidence has been led to prove that newspaper employees working in 'Business Bhaskar' were carrying any managerial or supervisory functions and are not covered under Schedule 1A - Grouping of Working Journalist in newspaper establishments as indicated in S.O. 2532(E) dated 11.11.2011.
29. FINDING: Shri Rajiv Ranjan Sinha & Ors. being newspaper employees covered under Schedule 1A of S.O. 2532(E) dated 11.11.2011 are held to be working journalists as defined under Section 2(f) of the Working Journalists Act.
ISSUE NO. II
30. Respondent's contention disputing interim relief by Page 30 of 52 Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.
LIR No.1368/2018referring to order dated 07.02.2014 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in W.P.(C) 246/2011 titled ABP Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. VS. Union of India & Ors. is misplaced as direction apropos wages payable from 11.11.2011 was in respect of revised scale of wages and dues as per S.O. 2532(E) dated 11.11.2011 whereas interim rate of wages in respect of working journalists is to be granted in terms of notification published by the Ministry of Labour & Employment vide S.O.2524(E) dated 24.10.2008.
31. Notification fixing interim rates of wages of working journalists @ 30% of the basic wage is extracted below:
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 24th October, 2008 S.O.2524(E). - Whereas the Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 9 of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (45 of 1955), has constituted a Wage Board for the purpose of fixing and revising rates of wages in respect of working journalist vide notification of the Government of India In Ministry of Labour and Employment, No. S.O.809(E), dated the 24th May, 2007;
And whereas the said Wage Board continues to function;Page 31 of 52
Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.LIR No.1368/2018
And whereas the Central Government is of opinion that it is necessary for interim rates of wages in respect of working journalists;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 13A, of the said Act, the Central Government, after consultation with the said Wage Board, hereby fixes the interim rates of wages in respect of working journalists at the rate of thirty per cent of the basic wage.
The interim rates of wages shall be payable with effect from 8th January, 2008.
[F.No. V-24032/6/2007-WB] ASHOK SAHU, Labour and Employment Advisor
32. Arrears of revised scale of wages and dues by claiming Dainik Bhaskar Group as Class-I newspaper establishment having total revenue in excess of Rs.1,000/- crores has been controverted by respondent by contending:
i. Business Bhaskar being a unit of Dainik Bhaskar Group was Class-VI newspaper establishment till Shri Rajiv Ranjan Sinha and six others were working in Delhi and Class-IV newspaper establishment after they were transferred to Jaipur.Page 32 of 52
Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.LIR No.1368/2018
ii. Burden of proof under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act could not be discharged as Mark-W9 referred by claimants is not admissible in evidence.
33. Shri Rahul Malhotra for respondent has adverted to paras 53 to 60 of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. MANU/UP/1963/2017 for the purpose of establishing the identity of newspaper establishment and its classification in terms of clause 3 (i) & (ii) of the Majithia Wage Board recommendations.
"53. Therefore, first it has to be established in accordance with Section 2(d) of the Act read with Schedule to the Act, the entities etc. that are included in the identity of the petitioner as a newspaper establishment.
54. Thereafter, the primary question to be examined before any wages can be claimed to be due by an employee at any particular rate, would be which class does the petitioner qualify as an establishment. This classification has to be done in terms of clause 3 (i) (ii) of the M.W.B. recommendations.
55. Then, the result of classification made under clause 3 has to be fixed or finalized under class 6 of those MWB recommendations. For that purpose the explanation to clause 6 has to be applied.Page 33 of 52
Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.LIR No.1368/2018
There under, depending on the gross revenue of the circulation and advertisement clubbed together a newspaper establishment may be placed higher or lower than the classification that it first appears to belong on the consideration of gross revenue except the newspaper establishment that falling under class 8.
56. Thus issues, arising under the Majithia Wage Board recommendation could be decided only after looking into two aspects:
one of the newspaper establishments and/or news agencies to be included in the identity of the petitioner as a newspaper establishment. Even if such identity is established or known it would not suffice to determine the issue of the Class of the newspaper establishment of the petitioner.
57. It would further require examination of gross circulation and advertisement revenues for three accounting periods specified in the Majithia Wage Board recommendations itself.
58. Even, this would not lead to final determination of the classification of the newspaper establishment inasmuch as final placement of the petitioner newspaper establishment in the classification would depend upon whether the advertisement revenue was 40% or 50% or less of the gross revenue. Only then and in accordance with such result, final classification of a Page 34 of 52 Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.LIR No.1368/2018
newspaper establishment would arise.
59. It is thus seen, the aforesaid exercise would have to be done in two parts. First, it would have to be seen as to which entities/ units/establishments are to be included in the identity of the petitioner as a newspaper establishment. It would require pleadings to be made and evidence to be led. Even constitutional documents of corporate and other entities and inter-se contracts between the petitioner establishment and its subsidiaries etc. would have to be gone into.
Their shareholding pattern would have to be necessarily examined before any particular entity may be included in the identity of the petitioner as a newspaper establishment as subsidiary or holding company.
60. Once such identity is established, then, a further and more elaborate exercise would have to be gone into involving scrutiny of financial documents relating to gross revenue, circulation revenue and advertisement revenue of each entity/unit/ establishment which is included in the identity of the petitioner as a newspaper establishment. Only after such a scrutiny has been made the result would arise as contemplated under the Majithia Wage Board recommendation in terms of Clause 6 thereof and it may be said with any certainty whether the petitioner newspaper establishment belongs to Class I or Class VII Page 35 of 52 Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.
LIR No.1368/2018or to any other class."
34. Clause 3 of the Majithia Wage Board recommendations published vide S.O. 2532(E) dated 11.11.2011 deals with classification of newspaper establishment. Same is reproduced below for reference:
SECTION II Classification of newspaper Establishment and Grouping of Newspaper Employees
3. Classification of newspaper Establishment - For the purpose of fixation or revision of rates of wages in respect of working journalist and non-journalist newspaper employees (other than the news agencies), the newspaper establishments shall be classified hereinafter provided
(i) The classification of newspaper establishments shall be based on the average gross revenue of three accounting years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. The different departments, branches and centres of newspaper establishment shall be treated as parts thereof.
(ii) Notwithstanding the clubbing of different department, branches and centres of newspaper establishments on the basis of their own gross revenue, the units of the newspaper establishments of all the classes as categorized in paragraph 6 of this Chapter shall not be stepped up by more than two classes over and above the classes to which they belong according to their gross revenue, as a result of their clubbing.
Page 36 of 52Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.
LIR No.1368/2018Explanation - For the purpose of this clause,
(a) If there are different units/branches/companies of one classified newspaper establishment in one town or city and adjoining areas, even though carrying different names, these will be treated as one single unit of that newspaper establishment.
(b) In the case of a newspaper establishment completing two out of the aforementioned three (3) accounting years, its classification shall be determined on the basis of its average gross revenue for those two years.
(c) In the case of a newspaper establishment which has completed only one year of the said accounting years, its classification shall be determined on the basis of its gross revenue for that year.
(d) A new newspaper establishment, for which the provisions of clauses (a), (b) and (c) above do not apply, is liable to be classified after the completion of its first accounting year on the basis of its gross revenue for that year.
Provided that -
Notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (b), (c) and (d) above, a newspaper establishment which is classified on the basis of two (2) accounting years shall be placed one class lower than the class in which it is liable to be placed and a newspaper establishment, which is classified on the basis of one accounting year, shall be placed two classes lower than the class in which hit it is liable to be placed. In either case, it shall not be lower than Class VIII.
Page 37 of 52Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.
LIR No.1368/201835. Gross revenue being essential for classification of newspaper establishment has been defined in clause 2 sub-clause (5) of Chapter XIX of S.O. 2532(E) dated 11.11.2011 which is reproduced in verbatim:
"2(5) "Gross Revenue" of a newspaper establishment (other than news a agency) means the total revenue derived by the establishment from all sources of its newspaper business, including circulation and advertisement in its newspaper or newspapers, and also includes the income from the assets acquired and investments made by it out of funds earned in the newspaper business."
36. Respondent's contention that D.B. Corp Ltd. constitutes the entire group whereas Business Bhaskar being part of D.B. Corp Ltd. is a separate entity having separate registration number and balance sheet needs to be examined in the backdrop of the Schedule added to Section 2(d) of the Working Journalists Act by the Amending Act 31 of 1989.
37. Newspaper establishment as defined under Section 2(d) of the Working Journalists Act after inserting the Schedule reads as under:
"2(d) "newspaper establishment" means an establishment under the control of any person or body or persons, whether incorporated or not, for the production or Page 38 of 52 Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.LIR No.1368/2018
publication of one or more newspapers or for conducting any news agency or syndicate [and includes newspaper establishments specified as one establishment under the Schedule;
Explanation.-- For the purposes of this clause,--
(a) different departments, branches and centres of newspaper establishments shall be treated as parts thereof;
(b) a printing press shall be deemed to be a newspaper establishment if the principal business thereof is to print newspaper;] THE SCHEDULE
1. For the purposes of clause (d) of section 2, -
(1) two or more newspaper establishments under common control shall be deemed to be one newspaper establishment;
(2) two or more newspaper establishments owned by an individual and his or her spouse shall be deemed to be one newspaper establishment unless it is shown that such spouse is a sole proprietor or partner or a shareholder of a corporate body on the basis of his or her own individual funds;
(3) two or more newspaper Page 39 of 52 Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.
LIR No.1368/2018establishments publishing newspapers bearing the same or similar title and in the same language in any place in India or bearing the same or similar title but in different languages in the same State or Union territory shall be deemed to be one newspaper establishment.
2. For the purposes of paragraph 1(1), two or more establishments shall be deemed to be under common control-
(a) (i) where the newspaper establishments are owned by a common individual or individuals;
(ii) where the newspaper establishments are owned by firms, if such firms have a substantial number of common partners;
(iii)where the newspaper establishments are owned by bodies corporate, if one body corporate is a subsidiary of the other body corporate, or both are subsidiaries of a common holding company or a substantial number of their equity shares are owned by the same person or group of persons, whether incorporated or not;
(iv) where one establishment is owned by a body corporate and the other is owned by a firm, if a substantial number of partners of the firm together hold a substantial number of equity shares of the body corporate;
(v) where one is owned by a body Page 40 of 52 Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.
LIR No.1368/2018corporate and the other is owned by a firm having bodies corporate as its partners if a substantial number of equity shares of such bodies corporate are owned, directly or indirectly, by the same person or group of persons, whether incorporated or not, or
(b) where there is functional integrality between concerned newspaper establishments."
38. Constitutional validity of Amending Act 31 of 1989 amending Section 2(d) of the Working Journalists Act by inserting the Schedule at the end of the Act and adding explanation to Section 10(4) of the Act has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Indian Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) & Ors. AIR 1995 SC
965. Para '7' of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court is extracted below for reference:
"7. As regards the other grounds of attack, we are afraid we see no reason to interfere with the award on the said grounds. In view of the amended definition of the "newspaper establishment" under Section 2(d) which came into operation retrospectively from the inception of the Act and the Explanation added to Section 10(4), and in view further of the fact that in clubbing the units of the establishment together, the Board cannot be said to have acted contrary to the law laid Page 41 of 52 Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.LIR No.1368/2018
down by this Court in Express Newspaper case (supra), the classification of the newspaper establishments on all India basis for the purpose of fixation of wages is not bad in law. Hence it is not violative of the petitioners' rights under Articles 19(1) (a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Financial capacity of an all India newspaper establishment has to be considered on the basis of the gross revenue and the financial capacity of all the units taken together. Hence, it cannot be said that the petitioner- companies as all India newspaper establishments are not viable whatever the financial incapacity of their individual units.
After amendment of Section 2(d) retrospectively read with the addition of the Explanation to Section 10(4), the old provisions can no longer be pressed into service to contend against the grouping of the units of the all India establishments, into one class."
39. Perusal of record would show that offer/appointment letter were issued by the Executive Editor (HR), Corporate Editorial Cell, D.B. Corp Ltd. or by Chief Manager- Corporate (HR), Bhaskar Group of Publication whereas certificates were issued to newspaper employee either by D.B. Corp Ltd. or for Business Bhaskar, a unit of D.B. Corp Ltd.
40. No evidence has been led to establish that Business Bhaskar being a part of D.B. Corp Ltd. was separate newspaper Page 42 of 52 Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.
LIR No.1368/2018establishment till its closure in August, 2013 notwithstanding respondent's contention that Business Bhaskar was Class-VI newspaper establishment till Shri Rajiv Ranjan Sinha and six others were working in Delhi and Class-IV newspaper establishment after they were transferred to Jaipur. Tabulated chart referred as Ex.MW1/3 is not sufficient to hold in favour of respondent in view of paras 59 & 60 of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Hindustand India Ventures Ltd. (Supra) which was rendered in the case assailing order passed by Assistant Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists Act.
41. Turnover of Rs.1,000/- crores of the entire group has been stated in para '4' of reply and D.B. Corp Ltd. being all India newspaper establishment is to be considered as Class-I establishment for the purpose of fixation of wages after amendment of Section 2(d) by inserting the Schedule and addition of Explanation to Section 10(4) of the Working Journalists Act - authorizing Wage Boards to make recommendations for fixation or revision of rates of wages on all India basis.
FINDING: Shri Rajiv Ranjan Sinha & Ors are entitled to receive (a) interim rates of wages @ 30% of the basic wage up to 10th November, 2011 AND (b) arrears of revised scale of wages and dues as per clause 10 & 11 read with Table '1' of S.O. 2532(E) dated 11.11.2011 by holding D.B. Corp Ltd. as Class-I newspaper establishment.
Page 43 of 52Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.
LIR No.1368/2018ISSUE No. III
42. It is the case of respondent that claimants Shri Rajiv Ranjan Sinha & Ors. having resigned from management w.e.f. 30.04.2014 had executed full and final settlement of dues without coercion or undue influence and no demand for revised scale of wages and dues was raised by them from 11.11.2011 till 30.04.2014 or at least from 07.02.2014 to 30.04.2014.
43. Shri Rahul Malhotra for respondent has vehemently argued that claimants having resigned/worked till closure of Business Bhaskar have received full and final settlement without any demur or objection and are deemed to have waived their right to demand any further amount after full and final satisfaction of dues at the time of resignation.
44. Respondent's counsel, in addition, has contended that Shri Rajiv Ranjan Sinha & Ors. were drawing salary and dues higher than the amount recommended by the Majithia Wage Board and continued to avail more favourable benefits by virtue of Section 16 of the Working Journalists Act.
45. Shri Soumyajit Pani for claimants, per contra, has urged in favour of right to seek interim rate of wages of working journalists along with arrears of revised scale of wages and dues by adverting to paras 5 & 6 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bennett Coleman & Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Punya Priya Das Gupta 1969 (2) SCC 1 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held:
Page 44 of 52Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.LIR No.1368/2018
"That an ex-employee would be a working journalist. It is clear that the definitions of a "newspaper employee" and a "working journalist" have to be construed in the light of and subject to the context requiring otherwise. The claim for gratuity under Section 17, read with Section 5 of the Act would itself be one which accrues after the termination of employment. These provisions, therefore, clearly indicate that it is not only a newspaper employee presently employed who can maintain an application for gratuity. The scheme of all the Acts dealing with industrial questions is to permit an ex-employee to avail himself of the benefits of these provisions, the only requirement being that the claim in dispute must be one which has arisen or accrued whilst the claimant was in the employment of the person against whom it is made. There can, therefore, be no doubt that the definitions of a "newspaper employee" and "working journalist" being subject to the context to the contrary, the benefit of Sections 5 & 17 is available to an ex- employee though he has ceased to be in the employment of that particular newspaper establishment at the time of his application for gratuity."
46. Respondent's contention that Shri Rajiv Ranjan Sinha & Ors. having received full and final payment at the time of resignation/cessation of work on account of closure of Business Page 45 of 52 Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.
LIR No.1368/2018Bhaskar are deemed to have waived their right to claim benefits under the Majithia Wage Board Award cannot be accepted in view of clause 20(j) of S.O.2532(E) dated 11.11.2011 read with Section 16 of the Working Journalists Act.
47. Statutory provision of the Act allowing continuation of more favourable benefit is reproduced below for reference:
CHAPTER IV MISCELLANEOUS
16. Effect of laws and agreements inconsistent with this Act. - (1) The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law or in the terms of any award, agreement or contract of service, whether made before or after the commencement of this Act:
Provided that where under any such award, agreement, contract of service or otherwise, a newspaper employee is entitled to benefits in respect of any matter which are more favourable to him than those to which he would be entitled under this Act, the newspaper employee shall continue to be entitled to the more favourable benefits in respect of that matter, notwithstanding that he receives benefits in respect of other matters under this Act.
(2) Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to preclude any newspaper employee from entering into an agreement with an employer for granting him rights or privileges in respect of any matter which are more favourable to Page 46 of 52 Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.LIR No.1368/2018
him than those to which he would be entitled under this Act.
48. Clause 20(j) of S.O. 2532(E) dated 11.11.2011 regarding fixation of initial wage in the revised scale is extracted herein below:
"20. (j) The revised pay scales shall become applicable to all employees with effect from 1st July 2010. However, if an employee within three weeks from the date of publication of Government notification under Section 12 of the Act enforcing these recommendations exercises his option for retaining his existing pay scale and "existing emoluments", he shall be entitled to retain his existing scale and such emoluments."
49. Respondent's contention that Business Bhaskar being separate entity with separate registration number and balance sheet could not be established in the absence of any evidence verifying inter se contracts between D.B. Corp Ltd. and its subsidiaries, their shareholding pattern and scrutiny of financial documents relating to gross revenue, circulation revenue and advertisement revenue of each entity/unit/establishment. It would therefore be preposterous to contend that Shri Rajiv Ranjan Sinha & Ors. were drawing salary and dues higher than the amount recommended by the Majithia Wage Board and continued to avail more favourable benefits by virtue of Section 16 of the Working Journalists Act.
Page 47 of 52Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.
LIR No.1368/201850. It is not the case of respondent that Shri Rajiv Ranjan Sinha & Ors. have exercised their option of retaining existing pay-scale and emoluments as per clause 20(j) of S.O. 2532(E) dated 11.11.2011. The fact that claimants have received their dues in the previous pay-band will therefore not dis-entitle them to receive - (a) interim rates of wages AND (b) arrears of revised scale of wages and dues as welfare statutes must receive broad interpretation and court is not supposed to make inroads by making etymological excursions where legislature has designed to give relief.
FINDING: Shri Rajiv Ranjan Sinha & Ors. being working journalists are entitled to receive - (a) interim rates of wages @ 30% of the basic wage up to 10th November, 2011 AND (b) arrears of revised scale of wages and dues as per clause 10 & 11 read with Table '1' of S.O. 2532(E) dated 11.11.2011.
51. Prayer seeking (a) compensation for delayed period; (b) Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation cost; (c) Rs.5,00,000/- as abrupt closure impact cost together with interest @ 18% for delayed period cannot be acceded as terms of reference set out by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Central District, New Delhi does not extend beyond S.O.2532(E) dated 11.11.2011 whereas jurisdiction of Labour Court under Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists Act being pari materia to Section 33C(2) of I.D. Act is limited to computation of pre-existing benefit capable of being computed in terms of money and not to confer any new benefit.
52. Para 9 of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Page 48 of 52 Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.
LIR No.1368/2018Kuldeep Singh V/s M/s Lucky Gold Star International 2014 SCC Online Del 685 being relevant is extracted below:
"9. Having considered the rival submissions on behalf of the parties, insofar as the power of the Labour Court in granting interest in a claim filed under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act is concerned, the same is no more res integra. In terms of the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in CGIT case (supra), Bombay High Court in Payal Electronics case (supra) and Calcutta High Court in Director of Transport case (supra), it was held that the said Section does not confer jurisdiction to the Labour Court to grant interest. In fact in a latest judgment the Division Bench of this Court reported as (2013) ILR III Delhi 1724 Bhim Singh Bajeli vs. P.O, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, has held that a plain language of Section 33(C)(2) of the Act does not clothe the Labour Court or the concerned Industrial Tribunal with the jurisdiction to direct any payment in excess of what was directed by the award."
53. RELIEF: Separate claim filed by 12 newspaper employees are allowed by a common Award granting (i) interim rate of wages of working journalists at the rate of 30% of the basic wage as per S.O. 2524(E) dated 24.10.2008 AND (ii) arrears of revised scale of wages and dues as per S.O. 2532(E) dated 11.11.2011 holding D.B. Corp Ltd. as Page 49 of 52 Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.
LIR No.1368/2018Class-I newspaper establishment - as indicated in Table '2' appended below:
TABLE '2' Name Basic Wage Interim Revised Variable DA HRA TA Medical in the Rate of Scale of pay @ 35% as per as per as per under earlier scale Wages @ Wage with of revised clause 13 clause 14 clause 15 clause 19 30% of 2.90 scale as per read with read with read with of basic wage multiplier clause 9 of Table 'IV' Table 'V' Table 'V' S.O. up to under clause S.O. of of of 2532(E) 10.11.2011 10 & 11 read 2532(E) S.O. S.O. S.O. dated with Table dated 2532(E) 2532(E) 2532(E) 11.11.11 '1' 11.11.11 dated dated dated 11.11.11 11.11.11 11.11.11 A B C D E F G H Rajiv Ranjan Rs.12,000/- Rs.15,600/- Rs.34,800/- Rs.12180/- Rs.5177/- 30% of 20% of Rs.1000/-
Sinha per month C + D at C+D at per month w.e.f. Delhi AND Delhi w.e.f.
12.05.2008 20% of C AND 12.05.2008
+ D at 10% up to
Jaipur C+D & at 30.04.2014
Jaipur
Gaurav Rs.3,899/- Rs.5,069/- Rs.15000/- Rs.5250/- Rs.2231/- 30% of 20% of Rs.1000/-
Kumar per month C + D at C+D at per month
w.e.f. Delhi AND Delhi w.e.f.
01.04.2010 20% of C + AND 01.04.2010
D at Jaipur 10% up to
C+D & at 21.08.2013
Jaipur
Randhir Rs.12,000/- Rs.15,600/- Rs.34,800/- Rs.12180/- Rs.5177/- 30% of 20% of Rs.1000/-
Singh Rana per month C+D at C+D at per month
w.e.f. Delhi Delhi w.e.f.
10.09.2008 10.09.2008
up to
30.04.2014
Shashi Rs.21,000/- Rs.27,300/- Rs.48,300/- Rs.16,905/- Rs.7185/- 30% of 20% of Rs.1000/-
Kumar Jha per month C + D at C+D at per month
w.e.f. Delhi AND Delhi w.e.f.
01.06.2008 20% of C + AND 01.06.2008
D at Jaipur 10% up to
C+D & at 30.04.2014
Jaipur
Sachin Yadav Rs.3,899/- Rs.5,069/- Rs.15000/- Rs.5250/- Rs.2231/- 30% of 20% of Rs.1000/-
per month C+D at C+D at per month
w.e.f. Delhi Delhi w.e.f.
01.04.2011 01.04.2011
up to
31.07.2013
Page 50 of 52
Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.
LIR No.1368/2018Neeraj Rs.12,000/- Rs.15,600/- Rs.34,800/- Rs.12180/- Rs.5177/- 30% of 20% of Rs.1000/-
Swamy per month C + D at C+D at per month
w.e.f. Delhi AND Delhi w.e.f.
11.06.2008 20% of C + AND 11.06.2008
D at Jaipur 10% up to
C+D & at 30.04.2014
Jaipur
Deepak Rs.12,000/- Rs.15,600/- Rs.34,800/- Rs.12180/- Rs.5177/- 30% of 20% of Rs.1000/-
Kumar per month C+D at C+D at per month
Mandal w.e.f. Delhi Delhi w.e.f.
10.05.2008 10.05.2008
up to
06.08.2013
Krishna Kant Rs.13000/- Rs.16,900/- Rs.37,700/- Rs.13,195/- Rs.5,608/- 30% of 20% of Rs.1000/-
Kulshrestha per month C + D at C+D at per month
w.e.f. Delhi AND Delhi w.e.f.
10.05.2008 20% of C + AND 10.05.2008
D at Jaipur 10% up to
C+D & at 30.04.2014
Jaipur
Sanjay Gupta Rs.5000/- Rs.6500/- Rs.15000/- Rs.5250/- Rs.2231/- 30% of 20% of Rs.1000/-
per month C+D at C+D at per month
w.e.f. Delhi Delhi w.e.f.
17.05.2008 17.05.2008
up to
30.04.2014
Ratan Singh Rs.8500/- Rs.11050/- Rs.24,650 Rs.8627/- Rs.3667/- 30% of 20% of Rs.1000/-
Shekhawat per month C+D at C+D at per month
w.e.f. Delhi Delhi w.e.f.
09.05.2008 09.05.2008
up to
31.07.2013
Bhanu Pratap Rs.5,000/- Rs.6500/- Rs.15000/- Rs.5250/- Rs.2231/- 30% of 20% of Rs.1000/-
Singh per month C + D at C+D at per month
w.e.f. Delhi AND Delhi w.e.f.
23.08.2010 20% of C + AND 23.08.2010
D at Jaipur 10% up to
C+D & at 30.04.2014
Jaipur
Vishwas Rs.6,900/- NIL Rs.20,010/- Rs.7003/- Rs.5267/- 30% of 20% of Rs.1000/-
Tiwari having C + D at C+D at per month
joined on Delhi AND Delhi w.e.f.
07.12.2012 20% of C + AND 07.12.2012
D at Jaipur 10% up to
C+D & at 30.04.2014
Jaipur
Page 51 of 52
Rajiv Ranjan Sinha Vs. The Business Bhaskar & Ors.
LIR No.1368/2018**LTA - As per clause 18 of S.O. 2532(E) dated 11.11.11 subject to availing of leave and production of necessary documents in proof of journey actually undertaken.
54. Shri Rajiv Ranjan Sinha & Ors. are entitled to receive outstanding dues mentioned in B to H against their names (as indicated in Table '2') after adjusting the amount already drawn by the newspaper employees.
55. Copy of the Award be sent to Deputy Labour Commissioner, Central District, Employment Exchange Building, Pusa Campus, New Delhi and another copy be kept in each file.
56. Judicial file be consigned to record room. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT DATED: 19.05.2023 Digitally signed by TARUN TARUN YOGESH YOGESH Date:
2023.05.23 15:08:27 +0530 (TARUN YOGESH) PRESIDING OFFICER - LABOUR COURT-08 ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS:
NEW DELHI Page 52 of 52