Allahabad High Court
M/S Jagran Prakashan Limited vs Shri Amar Kumar Singh And 3 Others on 27 April, 2023
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Reserved Court No. - 25 Through Video Conferencing from Lucknow Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10419 of 2023 Petitioner :- M/S Jagran Prakashan Limited Respondent :- Shri Amar Kumar Singh And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Bhan Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Man Mohan Singh And Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23212 of 2021 Petitioner :- M/S Jagran Prakashan Limited Respondent :- Kishan Lal And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Bhan Gupta,Man Mohan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashutosh Pratap Singh,Lokendra Pratap Singh,Shantanu Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. After hearing the matter, this Court had called for the records of Writ-C No.23212 of 2021. As the issue raised in both the writ petitions is common, both the writ petitions are being decided by means of this common order. For the sake of brevity, Writ-C No.10149 of 2023 is being decided as a leading case.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 11.10.2022, 07.11.2022 and 04.01.2023 whereby total of 57 references have been consolidated and decided.
3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is a newspaper establishment as defined under section 2(d) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Condition of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (herein after referred to as 'WJ Act'). The petitioner is situated at Noida and is engaged in the business of printing of newspaper in the name and style of 'Dainik Jagran'. In addition to the said, the petitioner is also engaged in the news through electronic media and website etc.
4. It is claimed that the respondent no.1 of Writ Petition No.10419 of 2023 was appointed on the post of Dispatcher on probation basis w.e.f. 01.11.2007 with the petitioner. Similarly the other claimants in the fifty six references were also employed in a similar capacity.
5. It is argued that the Central Government in compliance of the mandate of the 'WJ Act', constituted two Wage Boards for journalist and non-journalist employees under section 9 and 13-C of the 'WJ Act'. The said wage boards gave its recommendations which were notified by the Central Government on 11.11.2011. It is argued that the recommendations so made by the Majithia Wage Board (hereinafter referred to as 'Wage Board') were challenged along with the vires of the Act of 1955, which was decided by the Supreme Court vide order dated 07.02.2014. It is argued that in terms of the recommendations made by the Wage Board, para 20-J of the said recommendations specifically provided as under :
20(J) The revised pay scales shall become applicable to all employees with effect from the 1st of July 2010. However, if an employee within three weeks from the date of publication of the Government Notification u/s 12 of the Act enforcing these recommendations exercises his / her option for retaining his existing pay scales and existing emoluments, he/she shall be entitled to retain his / her existing scales and such emoluments".
6. It is argued that as no alternation was made by the Central Government to the recommendations of the Wage Board, as such the provision of Clause 20(J) also stood notified. It is argued that in terms of the mandate of para 20(J) of the recommendations as notified by the Central Government, the respondent no.1 along with other persons, who are covered in the awards, gave an option to retain the existing wages and existing emoluments through a voluntary undertaking. It is argued that despite giving an undertaking in terms of the clause 20(J) of the Wage Board, the respondent no.1 with a group of 198 persons filed a claim under section 17(1) of the Act before the office of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, New Delhi. As the issue of jurisdiction arose finally, in terms of the order of the High Court, Delhi passed in Writ Petition No.5606 of 2016, the matters were relegated to be agitated before the authorities at Noida and thereafter a fresh applications under section 17(1) were filed before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Noida on 01.02.2018 claiming an amount of Rs.36,28,430/- in respect of the respondent no.1 (Annexure no.7). Similar applications were filed by the other employees also. The petitioner filed their reply / objection to the said applications under section 17(1) on 17.04.2018 (in respect of opposite party no.1).
7. The petitioners filed their objection to the application filed by the employees and denied their liability to pay any amounts mainly on the foundation of clause 20 (j) of the Wage Board read with voluntary undertaking by the employees. It was also objected that without decision on dispute as provided under Section 17(2)no orders could be passed under Section 17.
8. It is argued that the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Noida) made a reference dated 07.08.2018 by framing two issues (Annexure no.10). In response to the summons from the Labour Court, the petitioner put in appearance and the matter was adjourned to 01.11.2018 on which date, the petitioners filed their preliminary submissions and both the parties have exchanged their pleadings. It is on record that on 26.08.2019, two issues were framed with regard to the maintainability and the jurisdiction to the following effect :
i. Whether this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the present issues of Industrial Dispute, particularly in context of issue No.2 if so, its effect ?
ii. Whether the claimant had exercised his option to retain existing pay scale and existing emoluments and has given his undertaking under para 20(J) of the Majithia Wage Board Recommendations, notified vide notification No. SO532, dated 11.11.2011 of Central Government, as alleged. If so, its effect ?
9. It is argued that on the next date fixed in the matter i.e. 06.07.2021, all the similar matters were consolidated. The petitioner filed an application seeking recall of the order of consolidation mainly on the ground that all the claims were different on facts and could not be consolidated. It is on record that the Labour Court had earlier decided the issue of jurisdiction in a leading case being ADJ Case No.584 of 2018 on 02.03.2021 and vide order dated 16.07.2021 decided the issue no.1 framed by the Labour Court on jurisdiction and followed the order dated 02.03.2021. It is argued that in all 62 cases were consolidated and in the leading case being case no 584 of 2018, an order was passed on 01.07.2021. The petitioners challenged the order dated 02.03.2021 whereby the preliminary issue was decided in ADJ Case No.584 of 2018 by filing a Writ Petition No.23212 of 2021. This court vide order dated 17.09.2021 stayed the proceedings of Case No.584 of 2018 mainly placing the reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Case of Kasturi and Sons (Private) Ltd. v. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507. As the cases were consolidated by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, the petitioner moved an application bringing on record the said order passed by this court and requested that the other cases which were consolidated with the leading case no.584 of 2018 may also be adjourned, as the issue was subjudice before the High Court. The said adjournment application was rejected with a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) vide order dated 06.06.2022 and proceeded to hear the matter. The Assistant Labour Commissioner vide order dated 11.10.2022 decided all the fifty seven pending cases. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.
10. Heard Sri Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Man Mohan Singh and Sri Nikhil Agarwal the counsel for the respondents.
11. The counsel for the petitioner argues that the order impugned in the present writ petition is bad in law for the reasons more than one. He firstly argues that in view of an order passed by this court in the leading case, the labour court has erred in deciding the cases when the preliminary issue was subjudice before the court. He next argues that the employees/respondent no.1 had given an undertaking accepting the option of retaining the existing pay-scale and existing emoluments in terms of the mandate of Clause 20(J) of the Wage Board and thus, they could not have raised a claim by filing an application under section 17 of the Act.
12. The learned Senior Advocate argues that benefits of service is much broader concept and includes within its sweep a whole array of benefits which are other than wages and emoluments, for example, the benefits of working in a particular area, etc.
13. During the course of arguments, learned Senior Advocate has taken me through the statements given by the management witnesses and cross examination to argue that it was well established that the respondents and the other similarly placed persons had voluntary accepted for retaining the existing pay-scale, existing emoluments and benefits of service under Clause 20(J) of the Wage Board and thus, in view of the overwhelming evidence on record, the labour court has erred in granting the relief by means of the impugned order. He further argues that after the decision in respect of the challenge before the Supreme Court, a contempt petition was filed before the Supreme Court and in the said contempt petition, a status report was forwarded, which indicated that most of the persons had accepted the existing emoluments in furtherance of Clause 20(J) of the Wage Board.
14. The counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to the option exercised by the respondents including the respondent no.1. He further argues that along with the claim made by the respondent no.1, they also claimed the benefits of interim wages in terms of the mandate of Section 13-A for the period prior to the recommendations made by the Wage Board without clarifying and quantifying the claims. He draws my attention to the mandatory provisions of the Act and in particular relies on Section 17 to argue that the claim under section 17 can be made by filing an appropriate application, however, if any dispute arise, the same is to be referred to by the labour court under section 17(2) of the Act, which is to decide, being an issue of fact,after following the process of law and after looking into the evidence and the gist of the cross examination, which according to the petitioner, has not been done in the manner in which the labour court has decided the issue. He argues that the issue with regard to undertaking in terms of mandatory clause contained in Clause 20(J) is sacrosanct and binding in between the party and once the said option has been exercised, it is not open to the employee to take recourse to Section 17 of the Act.
15. The counsel for the petitioner further argues that the labour court has erred in treating the newspaper establishment, which is specifically defined under section 2(d) of the Act, as the company and based upon the documents downloaded from the internet with regard to financial position of the company, it has treated the financial data of the company to be that of the newspaper establishment and thus, has erred in passing the order treating the newspaper establishment in category-I solely based upon the gross revenue of the company and ignoring the revenue of the newspaper establishment which is a separate and distinct from the Company. He argues that although the newspaper establishment i.e. the petitioner works under one umbrella company, there is a distinction between the company and the establishment.
16. Sri Nikhil Agarawal appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, argues that this Court while passing the order in Writ Petition had only stayed the further proceedings of ADJ Case No.584 of 2018 and thus, no error of law has been committed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner in deciding the other cases. He argues after the rejection of the adjournment application, the petitioner had the right to approach this Court for extending the scope of the stay order dated 17.09.2021 to the other cases also, which, for the reasons best known to the petitioner was not done. He argues that the issue with regard to the applicability of Clause 20(J) of the Wage Board, should be interpreted by this Court by keeping in view the provisions of the Act and specifically Section 16 of the Act. He argues that once the challenge to the award in Writ Petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was dismissed on 07.12.2014 in Abp Private Limited vs. Union of Indian and others; (2014) 3 SCC 327, the scope and intent of the Act had to be made applicable. He further argues that while dismissing the writ petition, the Supreme Court itself directed that the wages as revised/determined shall be payable from 11.11.2021, the date when the recommendations of the Board were notified along with the arrears up to March 2014 in four equal instalments within a period of one year, whereas the respondents failed to do so.
17. He next argues that the reliance made in respect of the observations in the contempt petition (Avishek Raja vs Sanjay Gupta (2017) 8 SCC 435 ), can be of no avail to the petitioner as the Supreme Court itself records in paragraph no.24 that the issue is not being decided.
18. In reply to the contention of the counsel for the petitioner with regard to definition of newspaper establishment, he argues that in terms of the definition of section 2(d) and clarified under clause 11 of the Wage Board read with the schedule to the Act, the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner deserves to be rejected. He further argues that in any event, the labour court has not erred in downloading the revenue of the company as the petitioner never submitted any papers to be contrary before the labour court. He further argues that in case, the argument of the petitioner are accepted, the whole purpose of the enactment of the Act would stand frustrated. He argues that clause 20(J) of the Wage Board Act has to be read harmoniously with Section 13 and 16 of the Act, which specifically bars that in no situation, the wages of the newspaper employee could be lesser than Board recommendation as approved by the Central Government in terms of the Section 12 of the Act. He further argues that the argument of the counsel for the petitioner in respect of the power under section 17(1) and 17(2) of the Act are liable to be rejected inasmuch as the Supreme Court itself had clarified that the non-implementation of the recommendations of the wage board have to be dealt with in terms of the mandate of Section 17 of the Act. In support of the said submissions, he places reliance on the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No.18372 of 2018 .
19. In view of the submissions made and recorded above between the parties, what emerges is that the sheet anchor of the argument of the petitioner is that once Clause 20(J) of the Wage Board is in existence and has been notified as such, any claim over and above the undertaking given by the employees would not be maintainable. I propose to decide this issue prior to going into the other issues in respect of the manner of decision making, as argued by the counsel for the petitioner.
20. The 1955 Act, although now repealed by virtue of the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 by virtue of Section 143(2) of the Code, 2020 would continue to deal with the obligations flowing from the said Act. Brief legislative history of the WJ Act is that the said Act was enacted in the year 1955 being Act No.45 of 1955 on 20th December, 1955 with the object of providing benefits to the working journalists working with the newspaper establishment. The benefit as contemplated under the Act included the benefits as specified under Sections 4 to 13 and 13-A. Subsequently, the Act was amended by virtue of Amending Act No.70 of 1974 whereby for the first time, the Central Government amended the Act to bring within its fold the benefit that could flow in favour of the non-working journalists employee of a newspaper establishment. The amending Act did not extend all the benefits which were provided for in the 1955 Act in respect of the working journalists under the newspaper establishment and confined the benefits which could flow in favour of the non-working journalists to the extent as specified under Chapter-2A. Thus, a clear cleavage in the Act exists in between the benefits that flow in favour of the working journalists and ones that flow in favour of the non journalists employees of the newspapers establishment. A reading of Chapter-2-A clearly demonstrates that the benefits extended for the non-working journalists include the benefit of fixation or revision of rate of wages through the constitution of a Board for determining the wages in respect of the non journalists newspaper employee. The other benefits such as the ones enumerated under Sections 4, 5, 5A, 6 and 7 to 9 were not extended to the non-journalists newspaper employees.
21. Section 2-A defines the Board to mean a Board constituted under section 9 in relation to working journalist and Wage Board constituted under section 13-C in respect of employees who are working as non-journalist newspaper employees. In the present case, we are concerned with the recommendations of the Wage Board in respect of the non-journalist newspaper employees.
22. Section 2(d) defines 'newspaper establishment' as under :
"(d) "newspaper establishment" means an establishment under the control of any person or body of persons, whether incorporated or not, for the production or publication of one or more newspapers or for conducting any news agency or syndicate; 4[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 to the Act further clarifies as to how the 'newspaper establishment' under the common control are to be treated as 'newspaper establishment' defined under the Act.
23. Section 2(eee) defines 'wages' as under :
(eee) "wages" means all remuneration capable of being expressed in terms of money, which would, if the terms of employment, expressed or implied, were fulfilled, be payable to a newspaper employee in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment, and includes-
(i) such allowances (including dearness allowance) as the newspaper employee is for the time being entitled to;
(ii) the value of any house accommodation, or of supply of light, water, medical attendance or other amenity or of any service or of any concessional supply of food-grains or other articles;
(iii) any travelling concession, but does not include-
(a) any bonus;
(b) any contribution paid or payable by the employer to any pension fund or provident fund or for the benefit of the newspaper employee under any law for the time being in force;
(c) any gratuity payable on the termination of his service.
Explanation. In this clause, the term "wages" shall also include new allowances, if any, of any description fixed from time to time."
24. Section 13-C, mandates for constitution of the Wage Board in respect of non-journalist newspaper employees by the Central Government comprising of the persons specified under section 13-C. By virtue of Section 13-D, the provisions of Section 10 to Section 13-A have been made applicable to and in relation to, the Board constituted under section 13-C. Section 12 confers the power on the Central Government to enforce the recommendations of a Wage Board constituted under section 13-C of the Act. Section 13, of the Act which is applicable to the non-journalist newspaper employees by virtue of Section 13-D, provides as under :
13. Working journalists entitled to wages at rates not less than those specified in the order - On the coming into operation of an order of the Central Government under Section 12, every working journalist shall be entitled to be paid by his employer wages at the rate which shall in no case be less than the rate of wages specified in the order.
25. Section 13-A, which is also applicable to the non-journalist newspaper employees confers the power on the Government to fix the interim wages till the recommendations of the Wage Board are notified under section 12 of the Act.
26. It is essential to note that Section 16 of the Act further clarifies the situation in respect of laws and agreements inconsistent with this Act. Section 16 is quoted herein below :
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 him than those to which he would be entitled under this Act.
27. It is essential to note as to what benefits flow in favour of non-journalist newspaper employees, by virtue of the Act, they are 'wages' alone as Chapter II-A inserted by amending Act no.60 of 1974 only gives the protection of wages, the other benefits which flow from section 4, 5, 6 and 7 in favour of working journalists have not been extended to non-journalist newspaper employees.
28. On a conjoint reading of Section 13 and 16 of the Act, it is clear that any agreement or contract of service, inconsistent with the provisions of law will not govern the rights in between the parties. In fact, the proviso to Section 16(1) specifically clarifies that the terms and conditions which are more favourable, would continue to govern the entitlement of the employees of the newspaper establishment. The intent is further clarified by virtue of Section 16(2) which confers a power on the employee to enter into an agreement for granting him rights or privileges in respect of any matter which are more favourable to the employee than the one as prescribed under the Act.
29. On a harmonious consideration of the two provisions of Section 13 and 16 of the Act, in respect of non journalist employees,the inescapable conclusion is that the benefits that flow from the Act, namely 'wages' as defined under the Act, can be modified by an agreement only if the same are better than the one prescribed under the Act and in no case, any agreement which prescribes the benefits of wages or emoluments less than the one notified and prescribed by the Board is barred by virtue of Section 13 of the Act. In fact the provisions of the Majithia Wage Board itself clarified the meaning of a word 'existing emoluments' in the explanation to Clause 20, which reads as under :
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.
Explanation :
(1) The "existing emoluments of an employee shall mean his basic pay, variable dearness allowance at the All India average Consumer Price Index Number for Industrial Workers (Base 2001-100) at 167 during the period July 2009 to June 2010, convertible to CPI-IW (Base 1982-100) by the conversion factor of 4.53, and interim relief of 30% of basic pay sanctioned vide notifications 5.0, No. 2524 (E) and 2525 (E) dated 25 August 2008 as applicable for working journalists and non-journalists newspaper employee respectively.
(2) The additional emoluments" of an employee shall mean emoluments other than the "existing emoluments" described in Clause (1) granted by newspaper establishments, as a result of collective bargaining, agreement or award, as increase in basic wage, dearess allowance or interim relief.
(3) The "additional allowances" of an employee shall mean any monthly payments, by whatever name called, not related to a specific purpose nor agreed to be adjusted against any revision of pay or dearness allowance."
30. The argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that once the respondents have accepted the wages, emoluments and benefits as were existing by giving an undertaking, they are precluded from raising a claim under section 17 of the Act, merits rejection for the sole reason that the Clause 20(J) of the Wage Board has to be read in context with the explanation under Clause 20(J) read with Section 13 and Section 16 of the Act.
31. It is well settled that the Act , a piece of socio beneficial legislation enacted with a view to give reasonable working conditions to the employees of the newspaper establishment, needs to be interpreted in a manner, which leads to achieve the purpose for which the Act was enacted. The provisions of Clause 20(J) read with Section 13 and 16 have to be interpreted harmoniously to ensure that none of the provisions are rendered otiose.
32. The rule of harmonious construction, considered by the Supreme Court in the leading case of Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Hindustan Bulk Carriers; (2003) 3 SCC 57 laid down the principles as under :
14. A construction which reduces the statute to a futility has to be avoided. A statute or any enacting provision therein must be so construed as to make it effective and operative on the principle expressed in the maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat i.e. a liberal construction should be put upon written instruments, so as to uphold them, if possible, and carry into effect the intention of the parties.
15.A statute is designed to be workable and the interpretation thereof by a court should be to secure that object unless crucial omission or clear direction makes that end unattainable.
16.The courts will have to reject that construction which will defeat the plain intention of the legislature even though there may be some inexactitude in the language used.
17.If the choice is between two interpretations, the narrower of which would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation, we should avoid a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility, and should rather accept the bolder construction, based on the view that Parliament would legislate only for the purpose of bringing about an effective result.
18.The statute must be read as a whole and one provision of the Act should be construed with reference to other provisions in the same Act so as to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute.
19.The court must ascertain the intention of the legislature by directing its attention not merely to the clauses to be construed but to the entire statute; it must compare the clause with other parts of the law and the setting in which the clause to be interpreted occurs. (SeeR.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka [(1992) 1 SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 286 : (1992) 19 ATC 507 : AIR 1992 SC 81] .) Such a construction has the merit of avoiding any inconsistency or repugnancy either within a section or between two different sections or provisions of the same statute. It is the duty of the court to avoid a head-on clash between two sections of the same Act.
20.Whenever it is possible to do so, it must be done to construe the provisions which appear to conflict so that they harmonise. It should not be lightly assumed that Parliament had given with one hand what it took away with the other.
21.The provisions of one section of the statute cannot be used to defeat those of another unless it is impossible to effect reconciliation between them. Thus a construction that reduces one of the provisions to a "useless lumber" or "dead letter" is not a harmonised construction. To harmonise is not to destroy."
33. The argument of the counsel for the petitioner in the light of the provisions of Clause 20(J), if accepted, would render the entire Act inapplicable and if the said argument is accepted, the same would be in clear violation of the mandate of Section 12, 13, 13-C, 13-D and Section 16 of the Act.
34. In the present case the grievances raised under Section 17 by the employees could be referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) only in respect of disputes of quantum of benefits as prescribed by the wage board. The defence of the petitioner that the undertaking given by the employees would override the recommendations of wage board could be entertained only if it could be demonstrated prima facie that the 'wages and emoluments' (alone) being paid in terms of undertaking, to the employees, were more than the one prescribed and payable under the notified recommendations of the wage board. No such defence appears to be taken by the Petitioners.
35. It is further inconceivable as to why the employee would agitate for wages and emoluments by instituting proceedings under Section 17 if he was getting more amounts than what was prescribed by the wage board, it is equally inconceivable as to why any news paper establishment would contest such proceedings if they felt that the wages and emoluments paid to an employee under an agreement are more than the recommendations of the board.
36. The only issue of dispute in between the parties that is conceivable is that if the category of the newspaper establishment as prescribed by the wage board, if wrongly determined, can lead to adverse financial effect. In the present case the definition of news paper establishment under the Act read with the explanation and schedule to the Act leaves no room for interpretation that it is the Petitioner Company which is the 'newspaper establishment' for the purposes of this matter. As there is no dispute that the revenues of the petitioner company are more than rupees one thousand crores, the petitioner as 'newspaper establishment' would fall under Clause-I of the classification criteria provided under Clause 6 of the Wage Board.
37. In view of the interpretation of the provisions as recorded above and the facts as narrated, I do not find any error in the order passed by the authority being the order dated 04.01.2023, both the writ petitions lack merit and are dismissed. Further steps shall be taken in respect of claims which is subject matter in W.P. No.23212 of 2021 expeditiously.
38. The cost of litigation as incurred by the respondent, to be paid by the petitioner is assessed at Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand), which shall be paid by the petitioner company to the respondent no.1 of Writ-C No.10419 of 2023.
Order Date :- 27th April, 2023 VNP/-
[ Pankaj Bhatia J.]