Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Pragativadi vs Shishu Pal Khare And Anr on 28 January, 2026
Author: Manoj Kumar Ohri
Bench: Manoj Kumar Ohri
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6166/2018, CM APPL. 23840/2018
M/S PRAGATIVADI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Ms. Kritika Matta,
Ms. Bhumica Kundra, and Ms. Shreya
Gupta, Advocates.
versus
SHISHU PAL KHARE AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Avni Singh, Panel Counsel for
GNCTD.
Mr. Gautam Das, Ms. Khushi Chopra,
Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Jha, and Mr.
Shivam Kumar, Advocates for
Respondent No. 1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
ORDER
% 28.01.2026
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking setting aside of the order
dated 12.01.2018 passed by the learned Deputy Labour
Commissioner/Authority under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter "the Act").
Vide the impugned order, the Authority came to the conclusion that respondent no. 1 herein was entitled to receive a sum of Rs.16,70,881/- and directed the concerned District Collector to recover the said amount from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. A recovery certificate in this regard was This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/02/2026 at 20:35:32 also issued separately.
2. The aforesaid order came to be passed in the backdrop of a claim filed by respondent no. 1, claiming himself to be an employee of the present petitioner. The claim was instituted on 22.09.2016 with the averment that respondent no. 1 had been working as a regular employee with the petitioner on a full-time basis, as an office attendant. The claimant prayed for issuance of a recovery certificate in view of the recommendations of the Supreme Court in orders on the Majithia Wage Board. The application was accompanied by a calculation of arrears towards salary, PF, LTC, etc., amounting to Rs.14,73,538/-, for the period from November 2011 to December 2015, as well as interim relief of Rs.1,97,343/- for the period from January 2008 to November 2011, totalling Rs.16,70,881/-.
3. The petitioner raised an objection to the maintainability of the said claim by contending that the respondent was an ex-employee and even otherwise he had only worked on a part-time basis as a casual employee. The respondent's standing to prefer a claim under Section 17(1) of the Act was also challenged on the ground that the dispute between the parties was an "industrial dispute"
as defined under Section 2(k) and Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
4. A perusal of the record shows that the claimant had also filed documents relating to his EPF and ESI to show that he was working with the petitioner as a regular employee. He also filed his affidavit along with certain documents, such as his resignation letter, ID Card (Office Assistant), pay slip, salary vouchers, salary certificate, experience certificate, shipment delivery records, This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/02/2026 at 20:35:32 and inter-office memos. Subsequently, the claimant filed additional documents to support his claim, such as Ministry of IB documents, inter-office memos, e- mail communications, advertisement bills etc., along with a supporting affidavit.
5. The impugned order further records that the Authority had directed the petitioner to file its balance sheet; however, despite repeated opportunities, the same was not filed. Summons were thereafter issued in the name of the Publisher/Director, Sh. Priya Darshan Dass, which were refused twice.
6. Vide the impugned order, the Authority observed that the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the parties had not been denied by the petitioner. It was further noted that the petitioner had been deducting PF and ESI from respondent no. 1's wages on a regular basis, which negated its contention of the respondent being a part-time employee.
7. The petitioner's objection to the maintainability of the claim on the ground that respondent no. 1 was an ex-employee was also found to be meritless, as the Authority concluded that Section 17(1) of the Act makes no distinction between a serving employee and a separated employee.
8. The calculations filed by respondent no. 1 were not countered by the petitioner despite multiple opportunities, and the same were deemed to be accepted.
9. In the present proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order, contended that the Authority had travelled beyond the scope of its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order, inasmuch as the claimant was a part-time employee, and an ex-employee at the time of filing This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/02/2026 at 20:35:32 the claim, which disentitles him from preferring a claim under Section 17 of the Act. He further contended that the claim was barred by limitation.
10. As for the contention regarding whether a part-time or contractual employee can file a claim under Section 17(1) of the Act, the Supreme Court considered the same in Avishek Raja & Ors. Vs Sanjay Gupta1 and held as under:
"28. There is nothing either in the provisions of the Act or in the terms of the Wage Board Award which would enable us to hold that the benefits of the Award would be restricted to the regular employees and not contractual employees. In this regard, we have taken note of the definition of 'newspaper employees', 'working journalist' and 'non- journalist newspaper employees' as defined in Sections 2(c), 2(f) and 2(dd) of the Act."
11. Insofar as the contention relating to the claimant being an ex-employee is concerned, it is noteworthy that the same would not have any bearing on the award since the claimant had prayed for recovery of arrears and not any benefit for the period after his resignation. Even otherwise, a gainful reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Bennett Coleman & Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Punya Priya Das Gupta2, wherein the Management's contention that an ex- employee was not entitled to prefer an application under Section 17(1) of the Act due to not being in the service of the Management company on the date of his claim was held to be unsustainable.
12. With respect to the contention that the claim was barred by limitation, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while arrears of wages 1 (2017) 8 SCC 435 2 (1969) 2 SCC 1 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/02/2026 at 20:35:32 have been claimed for the period from January 2008 to December 2015, the claim came to be filed only in September 2016, and that in light of the same, the said claim is liable to be rejected.
13. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the recommendations of the Majithia Wage Board were accepted in toto and notified by the Central Government on 11.11.2011. The Majithia Wage Board Award was subsequently challenged by various newspaper establishments and other entities before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed these petitions on 07.02.2014 and, while upholding the recommendations, directed that the revised wages would be payable from 11.11.2011. It was further directed that arrears up to March 2014 be paid in four equal instalments within one year from the date of the judgment. As a result of the dismissal of these challenges, all newspaper establishments were bound to act in accordance with the Award. Since the Supreme Court's deadline for the payment of arrears extended into early 2015, this Court is of the view that the respondent's claim, filed in September 2016, cannot be termed as belated or barred by limitation. It is also worth mentioning that no objection in this regard was raised by the petitioner in its written statement filed before the Authority or at the time of arguments before the said Authority. This Court is also reminded of the beneficial nature of the concerned legislation and that the Court should not be overly technical while considering such claims. Considering all the above, the plea of limitation raised on behalf of the petitioner, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, is held to be of no consequence.
14.This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/02/2026 at 20:35:32
15. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that no grounds to interfere with the impugned order are made out. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.
16. The present appeal, along with the pending application(s), are disposed of in the above terms.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J JANUARY 28, 2026/sn This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/02/2026 at 20:35:32