Delhi District Court
The Workmen vs . on 5 October, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. MAHAVIR SINGHAL: POIT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
I.D. No. 03/04
The Workmen
Represented by the Press Trust of India Employees' Union, Delhi, PTI
Building, 4-Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001
Vs.
The Management
M/s Press Trust of India, PTI Building, 4-Parliament Street, New Delhi-
110001
Date of institution 07.01.2004
Date of reserving award 27.09.2011
Date of award 05.10.2011
Ref : F.24 (3084)/03-Lab. 3967-71 dated 13.11.2003.
AWARD
1. Workmen have raised the present industrial dispute through
Union and on failure of conciliation proceedings, GNCT of Delhi referred
the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication in following terms of
reference:-
1. Whether the workmen are entitled to three
promotion in 14 years and if so, what directions are
necessary in this respect ?
I.D. No. 03/04 Page 1 of 38
2. Whether non-field staff is entitled to conveyance
Allowance and if so at what rate and what directions
are necessary in this respect ?
3. Whether sub-editors going to reporting
assignments are entitled to honorarium and if so what
directions are necessary in this respect ?
4. Whether the demand of the workmen for treating
the payment of extra-duty as overtime and not petty
allowance is justified and if so what directions are
necessary in this respect ?
5. Whether the demand of the workmen for
appointment on compassionate ground in the event of
death of employee is justified and if so, what
directions are necessary in this respect ?
6. Whether workmen performing extra Night duty
are entitled to Pick-up and drop facility from their
place of duty to place of residence and vice-a versa
and whether the ladies staff living outside city be
spared from night/odd hours shifts and, what
directions are necessary in this respect ?
7. Whether workmen are entitled to at least one news
paper and if so, what directions are necessary in this
respect ?
8. Whether the demand of the workmen that seniority
of employee should not be affected by the grant of
merit increment is justified and if so, what directions
are necessary in this respect ?
2. Statement of claim has been filed by the workmen, wherein it is
stated that M/s Press Trust of India Employees' Union, Delhi is a
registered union, duly registered with the Registrar of Trade Unions
bearing registration no. 223 of 1951 and it was the sole union,
representing all the workmen, employed in the Delhi establishment of the
management till the management, in order to break the unity of the
I.D. No. 03/04 Page 2 of 38
workmen, encouraged the formation of another puppet union in July,
2002. It is stated that even after the formation of the other puppet union,
nearly 350 workmen, employed in the Delhi establishment of the
management, out of total 400 workmen, are still the members of The
Press Trust of India Employees' Union, Delhi and during its executive
committee meeting, the union resolved to raise certain demand pertaining
to the workmen with the management and since the management did not
accept the demands, raised by the union on behalf of the workmen, an
industrial dispute was raised in conciliation but due to the adamant attitude
of the management in not accepting the genuine and reasonable demands
of the union, the conciliation proceedings failed resulting in the present
reference, sent for adjudication, to this Hon'ble Tribunal. It is stated that
all the demands of the workmen, which have been referred for
adjudication to this Hon'ble Tribunal as per the terms of reference,
mentioned in the reference order dated 13.11.2003, are legal and justified
on the basis of, inter-alia, the excellent financial capacity of the
management to bear the extra burden as well as the industry-cum-region
basis and as such the terms of reference are liable to be decided in favour
of the workmen and against the management. It is further stated that the
management is limited company, incorporated under the Companies Act
I.D. No. 03/04 Page 3 of 38
and over the last number of years it has been consistently making huge
profits from its activities, including news collection and its dissemination
to various newspaper organizations and other establishments all over the
world and is amongst the highest gross revenue earning news agencies in
India, on account of which it has been categorized as a Class 1 (top class)
news agency, having gross revenue of Rs 20/- crores and above, by the
Wage Board of working Journalists and Non-Journalists Newspaper and
News Agencies Employees (Manisana Wage Board) in its
recommendation dated 25th July, 2000, which have been duly enforced by
the Govt. of India.
3. It is alleged that the management does not have any fixed,
transparent and uniform promotion policy and except for two promotions
to journalists in 10 years after every 5 years and two promotions to Non-
Journalists, first after 8 years and the second after another 5 years, all
other promotions are given on the basis of favoritism in an arbitrary and
whimsical manner, leading to stagnation in the service career of non-
favorite workmen of the management, who are otherwise sincere, hard-
working and able. This leads to unnecessary heart-burning amongst the
hard-working workmen and as such in order to avoid stagnation in the
service career of the hard-working workmen, they should be given at least
I.D. No. 03/04 Page 4 of 38
3 promotions in 14 years on a uniform basis.
4. It has been stated that Delhi and New Delhi is spread over a large
area and the establishment of the management is situated in the centre of
Delhi, which is a non-residential area and, therefore, all the workmen,
including non-field staff, many of whom are in fact living in sub-urban
towns of NOIDA, Faridabad and Gurgaon etc., have to commute long
distances to reach office and the cost of transportation, whether public or
private, has been increasing over the years by leaps and bounds. However,
no conveyance allowance is being given by the management to all the
workmen and some conveyance allowance is being arbitrarily given to
certain favorites of the management in the non-field staff without any
rational classification and the field staff are being paid conveyance
allowance only regarding their actual traveling in the field. All the non-
field staff, in view of the huge profits made by the management and the
expenses that the non-field staff has to incur in coming to and going back
from office from considerable distances, are entitled to conveyance
allowance of at least Rs 1500/- per month. Conveyance Allowance is
being paid by comparable establishment of Hindustan Times in Delhi and
also by similarly situated comparable News Agency U.N.I., which has
even less gross revenue, to its workmen.
I.D. No. 03/04 Page 5 of 38
5. It is stated that the Sub-Editors are sent by the management on
reporting assignments even after having performed desk duties for 6 ½
hours and sometimes even on their weekly off days. In view of the long
hours of working of Sub-Editors on reporting assignments, they are
entitled to receive reasonable honorarium from the management and
similarly situated News Agency UNI is giving honorarium, ranging from
Rs 150/ to Rs 300/- per day apart from T.A. and D.A. to its Sub-Editors
going on reporting assignments. It is further stated that the management is
taking work from the workmen for more than 9 hours a day or 48 hours a
week but instead of paying double over-time for the actual number of
hours put in by the workmen, employed in the establishment, as per Delhi
Shops and Establishment Act, only petty allowance of Rs 70/- per day is
being given by the management, which is illegal and unjustified and as
such the workmen are entitled to receive over-time at double the normal
rate of wages for the actual hours of over-time put in by them beyond their
normal working hours. It is further stated that the work of the workmen,
employed in the establishment of the management, is risk prone and the
long and odd hours of work in the establishment of the management put
extra stress and strain on the workmen and the work of the field staff is
very risky and, therefore, a number of employees, who were the only
I.D. No. 03/04 Page 6 of 38
bread earners in the family, died while in employment and their families
suffered penury. If the eligible family members of such deceased
workmen are given appointment by the management on compassionate
ground commensurate with their level of education, the dependent family
of the deceased will be saved from starvation. Many other comparable
establishments in the region have a policy or practice of giving
appointments to a dependent family member of the deceased workmen on
compassionate ground. The management is, therefore, also required to be
directed to give appointment to a dependent family member of a deceased
employees on compassionate ground.
6. It is further stated that work in the establishment of the
management continues for 24 hours and the extra night duty starts from
8p.m. to 2 a.m. and from 2. a.m. to 8 a.m. The management provides
drop facility only to the workmen whose night duty ends at 2. a.m.
However, those workmen who are required to report at 2 a.m. are not
provided any pick up facility and as such since public transport is not
available late at night or in the very early hours, and even otherwise, it is
very risky to travel alone at such hours and the workmen per force have to
come to the establishment at around 10 p.m. so as to attend their duties at
2 a.m. It would, therefore, be legal and justified that the management
I.D. No. 03/04 Page 7 of 38
should be directed to provide pick up and drop facility to the workmen
performing extra night duty from their place of duty to place of residence
and vice-versa. Keeping in view of worsening law and order situation,
particularly regarding the safety of women, it is just and fair that lady staff
living outside city should be spared from night/off hour shifts.
7. It is further stated that the management is a news agency, which
provides news to other newspaper organizations and, therefore, it is
befitting that all the workmen, in the same manner as working journalists,
be provided by the management at least one newspaper everyday, which
would also improve their their general knowledge and the level of
discussions regarding current affairs and news between the employees of
the management. It further stated that seniority of an employee is always
determined on the basis of the date of appointment to the post and as such
the seniority of the employee should not be affected merely because a
junior employee has been granted merit increment. In fact, merit
increments are granted in the management purely on the basis of
favoritism and not due to any actual merit and if such arbitrary and
whimsical grant of merit increment to any favorite employee is allowed to
affect the seniority of the senior employee the same would be illegal and
unjustified and would cause unnecessary resentment amongst the
I.D. No. 03/04 Page 8 of 38
employees adversely affecting the industrial peace. The grant of merit
increment, therefore, should not be allowed to affect the seniority of an
employee. It has been prayed that the reference be decided in favour of
the workmen and against the management and appropriate directions are
required to be issued to the management by answering term of reference in
favour of workmen.
8. In the WS filed by the management, it is stated that the reference
has been made without considering the submissions made by the
management during conciliation proceedings. It is stated that the case of
the claimants has not been espoused by the number of employees required
under the law. It is stated that the management is providing to its
employees much more benefits and facilities than what they are entitled to
and more than what is being provided by comparable organizations, who
are in similar line of business in Delhi and nearby areas. It is further
stated that PTI Employees Union, Delhi may have been registered in 1951
but it is not the majority union nor is it the only union of the workers. It is
denied that all the workers, journalists and non-journalists are members of
said union. It is stated that members of PTI Employees Union, Delhi filed
a case in Hon'ble High Court restraining its own members from holding a
general body meeting on 10.04.2002 and during the proceeding in the
I.D. No. 03/04 Page 9 of 38
matter it was submitted by Ld. Counsel for defendant that more than 300
members had submitted their resignation from the primary membership
from The PTI Employees Union and they have proposed to form a
separate union and get it registered in accordance with law and the
defendants have no concern whatsoever with the plaintiff or The PTI
Employees Union, Delhi. Hence, the submission made in the para by The
PTI Employees Union, Delhi holds no ground whatsoever as the
management has nothing to do with any Union or its formation. Later the
suit was dismissed as withdrawn after the counsel appearing for the Union
craved leave from the court to withdraw his suit and the application was
disposed accordingly. The Federation, which is the apex body of all
unions in PTI, has also de-affiliated The PTI Employees Union, Delhi and
has given affiliation to PTI Workers Union, Delhi. It is further stated that
justification regarding the legitimacy of demands is totally wrong and the
so-called demands have nothing to do with the local union. Since all these
issues are related to employees, work conditions, etc. which are discussed
with the Federation at the staff council meetings. This is a body formed
by the Board of Directors and the Federation, being the apex body of all
unions in PTI, negotiates with the management regarding working
conditions of the employees. It is stated that the Manisana Wage Board
I.D. No. 03/04 Page 10 of 38
was implemented by the management within a couple of days of being
notified. It is stated that as per agreement with the Federation, PTI has
been giving two time bound promotions. Reference is the matter of policy
decision of the organization rather than a matter relating to any kind of
demand. It is stated that PTI does not give conveyance allowance but it
reimburses its field staff for conveyance expenses incurred for either
collection of news, collection of dues and attending to subscribers'
complaints, their machines, etc. Staffers, who are required to travel from
the office for official work, are reimbursed and no staffer is paid to come
to the office. Since, the policy is only to reimburse expenses incurred for
official work, from office to the assigned place and back, the facility of
conveyance reimbursement allowance cannot be extended to all.
9. It is admitted that PTI indeed is an 24-hours news agency and
works round the clock in shifts. It is stated that in the past, staffers were
never dropped home, as the office had provided dormitories for the
staffers in the office itself but in the 80's, when women were inducted in
PTI and began doing night duties, the office decided to drop the women
staffers home instead of providing them dormitory facility in the office
and later on, the office after negotiating with the Federation, the night
dropping facility was extended to male staffers also. It is stated that all
I.D. No. 03/04 Page 11 of 38
staff who finish their duty between past mid-night to 2.00 am are dropped
home by vehicles provided by the office. Apart from this, staffers on
night duty get a night and extra night allowance as prescribed by the Wage
Board. It is stated that in the extra night duty, the office is on a skeleton
staff, barely one person per department, the office is provided with small
dormitory where these people may come and sleep before their shift
begins. It is further stated that PTI is a news agency, which provides
news to other news organizations and it does not publish any newspaper
and therefore, it cannot distribute newspaper to all its staffers. It is further
stated that in any case, as per the agreement with the federation, all
employees will get their two time bound promotions and higher level
promotions are given upon the merit of a person and exigencies of work
and is a prerogative of management.
10. Workmen have filed rejoinder, wherein they have reiterated the
stand taken in their statement of claim and denied the averments made in
the written statement.
11. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed by Ld. Predecessor on 06.09.2004:-
1. Whether the cause of workmen has been duly
espoused ?
2. Whether the workmen are entitled to three
promotions in 14 years ?
I.D. No. 03/04 Page 12 of 38
3. Whether non-field staff is entitled to conveyance
allowances ? If so, at what rate ?
4. Whether sub-editors going on reporting
assignments are entitled to honorarium ?
5. Whether the demand of the workmen for treating
the payment of extra-duty as overtime and not petty
allowance is justified ?
6. Whether the demand of the workmen for
appointment on compassionate ground in the event of
death of employee is justified ?
7. Whether workmen performing extra night duty are
entitled to Pick-up and drop facility from their place
of duty to place of residence and vice-versa and
whether the ladies staff living outside city be spared
from nigh/odd hours shifts ?
8. Whether workman are entitled to atleast one news
paper ?
9. Whether the demand of the workmen that seniority
of employee should not be affected by the grant of
merit increment is justified ?
10. In terms of reference
12. Workmen have examined Sh. Neeraj Bhushan, General Secretary
of PTI Employees Union, Delhi has examined as WW 1. In his affidavit,
he has deposed that this union had been the sole union exclusively
representing all the workmen of PTI till July 2002, when the old office
bearers of the union, who were puppets of the management, having been
defeated in the democratically held elections through secret ballot, at the
instigation of the management formed another but puppet union of the
management. However, despite the threats and inducements of the high
officials of the management to leave their union, majority of employees of
I.D. No. 03/04 Page 13 of 38
the establishment are still the members of the PTI Employees Union,
Delhi and the union has majority of employees as its members would also
be cleared from the fact that the union has number of times requested the
management and has filed an application before the Joint Labour
Commissioner, Delhi for holding a secret ballot amongst the employees to
find out the preference of the employees vis-a-vis the two unions. The
management has been vehemently opposing the such request of the PTI
Employees Union, Delhi as it is aware that if such secret ballot was to be
held, the PTI Employees Union would be able to prove its overwhelming
support from amongst the employees of the establishment. He has deposed
that the original of the registration certificate having been lost a duplicate
certificate was applied for and obtained. The copy of the same dated
11.6.2002 is proved as Ex. WW 1/1. He has deposed that the total
number of employees, employed in the Delhi establishment of the
management, is approximately 444, out of which 420 were the members
of their union till 26.06.2002, when the resignation of 39 union members
was accepted by the Executive Committee and the remaining employees,
except the few, who have retired or otherwise left services, have continued
to remain the members of their union. The number of members of their
union as on 1.04.2004 was 357 as per register of their union. Copy of
I.D. No. 03/04 Page 14 of 38
union register has been proved as Ex. WW 1/5. He has further deposed
that the Executive Committee of the union, in its meeting held on
31.05.2002, resolved to raise the general demands on behalf of workmen.
Copy of demand notice dated 07.06.2002 has been proved as Ex. WW 1/7.
In the rest of his affidavit, he has reiterated the contents of statement of
claim.
13. In his cross-examination, WW 1 has deposed that the Union was
affiliated with Federation prior to his joining of service i.e. in 1997. He
can not say whether their Union is still affiliated with the federation or not.
He can not say if the day to day proceedings of the Union was consulted
with the federation. He has further deposed that in the year 2001 he was
the active member of the Union and that he attended the meeting of
federation in March, 2002 at Kanpur as General Secretary of the Union, in
which all the office bearer and consultants of the Union were present. He
does not remember as to who had participated in the meeting on behalf of
the federation. He has denied that management had been deducting the
subscription during his entire service with the management. He has
further deposed that there are two Unions in Delhi i.e. PTI Employees
Union and PTI Workers Union. He could not say if the federation had
affiliated the other union or not. He has deposed that they never took up
I.D. No. 03/04 Page 15 of 38
the matter with the federation before raising the present dispute. He has
denied that any dispute is pending with regard to the demands raised in the
present dispute. He has denied that their Union does not represent the
majority of employees of Union and only few employees are the members
of the Union. He has admitted that he was dismissed by the management
in April, 2003. WW 1 has denied that management is providing better
facilities than the demands raised by the Union. It is denied that
management has implemented the wage board award. It is denied that
other managements are not providing similar benefits to its employees. It
is denied that wage structure of the management is far better than the other
managements. It is admitted that management has agreement with the
federation with regard to time bound promotion. It is denied that benefit
of time bound promotion was given to the members of the Union. It is
denied that grant of promotion is the discretion of the management. WW
1 was not aware about any agreement between the management union and
the federation in the year of 1993. It is admitted by WW 1 that
management is having the policy of two promotions in ten years. He has
deposed that he was not given any promotion. He has further deposed that
he joined the management as Trainee Journalist and at that time he was
Journalist Grade III and that management had given the time bound
I.D. No. 03/04 Page 16 of 38
promotion to its several employees namely Rakesh Hari Pathak,
Dhananjay Mahapatra, Sunil Kaul, Priyanka Tikku, SK Sharma, Gautam
Lumba etc. He has deposed that no settlement had been arrived between
the management and their Union with regard to the general demands. It is
denied that management only entered into settlement with the federation
of the employees and only those settlement are implemented. It is denied
that nobody is being paid the conveyance allowance for coming from
home to office and office to home. It is denied that workmen are entitled
for annual increment on the basis of their performance. It is admitted that
increment is being given to their employees. It is denied that designation
does not change with the grant of increments. It is denied that workmen
are not entitled for three promotion in 14 years. It is deposed that work of
management is round the clock and it is denied that lady staff has been
provided the dropping facility at the residence by the management. WW 1
was not aware whether Wage Board had discussed about this demand or
not. It is denied that tea is being provided to its employees who are on
night duty. It is denied that one newspaper is being provided to every
editor. It is admitted that PTI is not publishing the newspaper and is the
reporting agency only. It is deposed that seniority is not kept the sole
criteria by the management for promotion. It is denied that facility of
I.D. No. 03/04 Page 17 of 38
compassionate appointment cannot be granted by the management.
14. Workmen have examined Sh. J.S. Rawat, Vide President of PTI
Employees Union as WW 2. In his affidavit he has deposed that the
Executive Committee of the Union, in its meeting held on 31.5.2002, had
resolved to raise the general demands on behalf of workmen. He has
deposed that management does not have any fixed transparent and uniform
promotion policy and except for two promotions to journalists in ten years,
after every 5 years each and two promotions to non-journalists, first after 8
years and the second after another 5 years. It is deposed that promotions
are given on the basis of favouritism in an arbitrary and whimsical
manner, leading to stagnation in the service career of non-favourite
workmen of the management, who are otherwise sincere, hard working
and able. It is deposed by WW 2 that no conveyance allowance is being
given to all the workmen and some conveyance allowance is being
arbitrarily given to certain favourites of the management in non-field staff
without any rational classification. In the rest of his affidavit, WW 2 has
reiterated the contents of statement of claim.
15. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that the workers orally
raised the demand in the meeting of general body, on which basis the
Executive Committee of Union passed the resolution with regard to
I.D. No. 03/04 Page 18 of 38
present demand. It is deposed that meeting of general body took place in
April, May, 2002. He has deposed that he joined the management as
Attendant in the year 1982 and at that time he used to be paid basic salary
plus HRA plus DA. He could not say whether it has been recorded in
settlement that the management has right to withhold the time bound
promotion on the ground of work and conduct.
16. Management has examined Sh. Manish Mishra, its Sr. Manager
(HR and Personnel) as MW 1. He has deposed in his affidavit that
management has always been a benevolent employer and it always
implemented all successive Wage Boards and even Manisana Wage Board
was implemented immediately. It is deposed that management does not
discuss any issues related to demands of the employees with a local union
not affiliated to the Federation. It is deposed that every employee is
eligible for a time bound promotion as per settlement with the Federation
and that beyond time bound, promotions are based on merits and traits
such as being a team player, leadership ability, commitment, professional
aptitude, adaptability, editing skills, journalistic acumen etc. It is deposed
that beyond time bound, promotion is sole discretion of the management
and the employees cannot claim it as a matter of right. It is deposed that
there is no rule as per which promotion has to be made on the basis of
I.D. No. 03/04 Page 19 of 38
seniority alone. It is deposed that management is now providing
conveyance allowance to all its employees w.e.f. 1.4.05, even to those
who are not required to go out into the field on official assignments. Copy
of the circular has been proved as Ex. MW1/7. It is further deposed by
MW 1 that PTI is a 24 hours news agency and work round the clock in
shifts. In the past, staffers were never dropped home, as the office had
provided dormitory for the staffers in the office itself but in the eighties
when women were inducted into PTI and began doing night duties, the
management decided to drop women staffers home instead of providing
them dormitory facility in the office. However, with the negotiations of
the federation, the night dropping facility was extended to the male
staffers also. It is deposed that it is a facility, which was expressly
provided by the PTI after negotiations with the Federation. Now, all staff,
who finish their duties between past 10.30 pm to 2 am, are dropped home
by vehicles provided by the management. It is deposed that apart from
this, staffers on night duty get a night duty allowance and an extra night
allowance as prescribed by the Wage Board. It is further deposed that the
office, keeping in mind their welfare, provides tea to all staffers, on duty
at 10 pm, midnight and 2 am. It is deposed that as regards women, they
travel with their co-workers and drivers are instructed to drop women
I.D. No. 03/04 Page 20 of 38
staffers first and then any one else as far as possible. It is further deposed
that Journalists who are working on news desk were being provided
newspaper. However after negotiations with the federation, now all the
non journalist members will be reimbursed for purchase of one newspaper
per month on production of a receipt. As regards compassionate
appointments, it is deposed that it is a matter of policy and as such, there is
no policy of compassionate employment in PTI.
17. In his cross-examination, MW 1 has deposed that Manisana Wage
Board related to pay scales, grades, medical allowance, conveyance
allowance etc. He could not say if the federation is a disputed body. He
has denied that Federation of PTI Employees Union has nothing to do with
PTI, Delhi. It is denied that management has been dealing with the
federation illegally, unjustifiably and arbitrarily. It is denied that
management has malafidely started providing conveyance allowance of
Rs.150/- to all its employees w.e.f. 01.04.2005 with a view to defeat the
claim raised in the dispute. It is further denied that with a malafide motive
to defeat the claim, the management has started providing one newspaper
to the employees. It is admitted that management does not pay any over
time to any employee. Only conveyance reimbursement is given to the
employees who do extra duty. The reimbursement is given by the mode of
I.D. No. 03/04 Page 21 of 38
petty cash/ allowance. It is further admitted that those who come for extra
night duty are neither provided pick up facility nor dropping facility. It is
further admitted that ladies are also put in the night shifts. It is further
admitted that ladies staff, who leave their place of work at 2 am, are
accompanied by their co-workers and drivers and that the drivers are not
office employees and even the vehicles are also not office vehicles.
18. Sh. Amrit Mohan, Sr. Correspondent of management has been
examined as MW 2. In his affidavit, he has deposed that PTI Workers Union was formed in July, 2002 and before that there was only one Union namely PTI Employees' Union. However, due to uncooperative attitude towards the members and anti-union activities of the then General Secretary of PTI Employees' Union, the new union was formed. It is deposed that around 319 members who resigned from PTI Employees' Union became members of PTI Worker's Union. It is further deposed that PTI Employees Union filed a Civil suit before the Hon'ble High Court restraining its own members from holding general body meeting on 10.4.2002 and during the proceedings in the matter, Ld. Counsel for defendants submitted that more than 300 members have submitted their resignation from the primary membership of PTI Employees Union. The resignation letters of the members have been proved as Ex. MW2/1 I.D. No. 03/04 Page 22 of 38 collectively. It is further deposed that those members gave their authorisation-cum-consent in favour of PTI Worker's Union for deduction of union subscription from their salary. The authorisation-cum-consent letters have been proved as Ex. MW 2/3 collectively. It is further deposed that there is an apex body of all unions in PTI known as Federation of PTI Employees Union. It is deposed that federation is the umbrella body, to which all the local units of the unions are affiliated and the management deals only with the Federation and that each year, as a practice, the federation forwards a list containing names of its members to the management of PTI for deduction of union subscription from their salary. List of 351 members submitted by the Federation bearing page no.995- 1006 have been proved as Ex. MW2/5. It is further deposed that all negotiations on behalf of employees are done by Federation with the management through a Board appointed body known as Staff Council. The purpose of Staff Council is to address the grievances of the employees and reach an amicable settlement which promotes smooth functioning of the organisation. He has relied upon a settlement arrived at between the Federation and management and that issue of two time bound promotions in ten years was one of the settlement. The minutes of said meeting has been proved as Ex. MW3/1. It is further deposed that management is now I.D. No. 03/04 Page 23 of 38 providing a fixed transport allowance to the staffers and the same has been made applicable w.e.f. 1.4.05 vide circular Ex. MW 1/7.
19. In his cross-examination, MW 2 has stated that he is treasurer of the PTI workers Union, which is affiliated to the federation. He has denied that his union is puppet union of the management. He has admitted that no election of their union has been held by secret ballet since its formation. He has voluntarily stated that elections have been held as per the constitution of their union. A question was put to MW 2 that where there is any provision in the constitution of his union that the union will not raise a demand directly to the management and instead approach the federation. MW 2 replied that he would have to seen the constitution, which he did not bring on that day. He has deposed that workmen in Delhi Establishment of the management get two time bound promotions. He has deposed that he gets Rs.2000/- plus as Conveyance Allowance. He has deposed that as far as conveyance allowance to non-field staff is concerned, this was a long pending demand of the federation, which was successfully negotiated and was implemented. He has deposed that pick and drop facility should be provided to the employees, who are put on extra night duty.
20. I have heard arguments from Sh. Neeraj Bhushan, Ld. AR for I.D. No. 03/04 Page 24 of 38 workmen and Sh. B.K. Singh, Ld. Counsel/ AR for the management. I have perused the entire record. My findings on the issues are as under:-
21. Findings on issue no.1.
Issue No 1 is: "Whether the cause of workmen has been duly espoused ?" It is pleaded by the management that the cause of the workmen has not been properly espoused. It has been argued on behalf of management that minutes of meeting have not been produced and that the dispute has been raised with consultation of Federation and, therefore, the espousal is not proper in this case.
22. WW 1 has deposed that the Executive Committee of the union, in its meeting held on 31.05.2002 resolved to raise the general demands on behalf of workmen. Copy of demand notice dated 07.06.2002 has been proved as Ex. WW 1/7. WW 1 has also proved on record Ex. WW1/8, which is resolution passed at the Union Executive Meeting regarding raising the dispute before proper labour forum. Therefore, in view of Ex. WW1/7 and Ex. WW1/8, it is held that the dispute of the workmen has been espoused and I am of the considered view that non-production of minutes of meetings will not have material effect on the decision of the issue. No legal requirement of proving minutes of meeting for the purpose of proving espousal has been shown for management. Further, I I.D. No. 03/04 Page 25 of 38 am of the considered view that espousal does not get tainted merely because dispute has been raised with consultation of federation. Thus, it is held that espousal in the present case is proper.
23. Moreover, in M/s Payen and Talbros Ltd., vs Hans Raj and others DLT 1968 Vol. IV Page 130 it was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that:-
"the language of section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act in itself is wide enough to cover a dispute between an employer and a single employee but having regard to the scheme of the Act and the purpose for which it was enacted and the use of the word "workmen" in this definition clause, industrial dispute has been construed by the courts to mean a collective dispute, i.e. a dispute where workmen as a body or a considerable section of them make a common cause with the individual workman and raise a demand. It would not appear that the condition of an espousal of a body or a considerable section of workmen making a common cause with the particular dispute arises only when individual dispute per se is of the nature of an inividual dispute concerning a particular workman as opposed to collective dispute involving all the workmen. Where the dispute which was referred to the Tribunal related to gratuity scheme sought to be introduced for the benefits of all the workmen employed in a particular company, it was per se an industrial dispute. No espousal or support was needed for such a dispute".
24. The above judgment implies that espousal is not necessary in case of bulk workmen. Present is the case of bulk workmen raising general demands. Therefore, even if it is presumed that that there is no proper espousal in this case, the same would not affect the case of the workmen adversely, in view of above judgment. Accordingly, issues no.1 is I.D. No. 03/04 Page 26 of 38 decided in favour of the workmen and against the management.
25. Findings on Issue No.2 Issue no.2 is Whether the workmen are entitled to three promotions in 14 years ? Para 4 of Statement of claim is reproduced as below:-
"That the management does not have any fixed, transparent and uniform promotion policy and except for two promotions to journalists in 10 years after every 5 years and two promotions to Non-Journalists, first after 8 years and the second after another 5 years, all other promotions are given on the basis of favoritism in an arbitrary and whimsical manner, leading to stagnation in the service career of non-favorite workmen of the management, who are otherwise sincere, hard-working and able. This leads to unnecessary heart-burning amongst the hard-working workmen and as such in order to avoid stagnation in the service career of the hard-working workmen, they should be given at least 3 promotions in 14 years on a uniform basis".
26. It is admitted case of the workmen in statement of claim and in evidence of WW 1 that two time bound promotions are being given by the management to Journalist within ten years after every five years and two time bound promotions are being given to non-journalists, first after 8 years and second after 5 years. It is not the case of workmen that no promotion is done after two promotions but the demand of the workmen is that atleast 3 promotions in 14 years should be given on a uniform basis. After two promotions, other promotions are admitted but it is the I.D. No. 03/04 Page 27 of 38 grievances of the workmen that these other promotions are given on the basis of favoritism in arbitrary and whimsical manner. The favoritism and arbitrariness, as alleged by the workmen can be challenged separately. It is also admitted by WW 1 in the cross-examination that management has agreement with the federation with regard to time bound promotion. Thus, demand of workmen for more promotion seems to have no justification. This demand of the workmen is, thus, declined. Issue no.2 is decided in favour of management and against the workmen.
27. Findings on issue no.3 Issue no.3 is Whether non-field staff is entitled to conveyance allowances ? If so, at what rate? Conveyance allowance of Rs.150/- pm has been admitted on behalf of workmen during cross-examination of MW
2. WW 1 in his examination-in-chief, in para 8 has deposed that non-field staff are entitled to conveyance allowance of at least Rs.1500/- per month. MW 2 has admitted in his cross-examination that he is getting Rs.2000/- plus as conveyance allowances per month. He has further admitted that as an employee, he is of the view that whatever is being paid is less and more should be paid. Thus, in view of admission of MW 2, it is held that non-field staff are entitled to conveyance allowance @ Rs.1500/- pm. Issue no.3 is decided accordingly.
I.D. No. 03/04 Page 28 of 38
28. Findings on issue no.4 Issue no.4 is Whether sub-editors going on reporting assignments are entitled to honorarium ? In para 6 of statement of claim it is stated that Sub-Editors are sent by the management on reporting assignments even after having performed desk duties for 6 ½ hours and sometimes even on their weekly off days. In view of the long hours of working of Sub- Editors on reporting assignments, they are entitled to receive reasonable honorarium from the management and similarly situated News Agency UNI is giving honorarium ranging from Rs.150/- to Rs.300/- per day apart from TA and DA to its Sub-Editors going on reporting assignments.
29. There is no evidence of witness produced from similarly situated industries showing that they are giving honorarium as alleged above by the workmen. No rule or law has been shown by the workmen in support of their plea. Therefore, demand of workmen as regards honorarium is declined. Issue no.4 is decided accordingly.
30. Findings on issue no. 5 Issue no.5 relates to prayer of treating the payment of extra-duty as overtime and not petty allowance.
31. Sections 2(c) and 2(d) of The Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous I.D. No. 03/04 Page 29 of 38 Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as Act) are reproduced as under:-
(c) "newspaper employee" means any working journalist, and included any other person employed to do any work in, or in relation to, any newspaper establishment;
(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 and includes newspaper establishments specified as one establishment under the Schedule.
32. Section 2 (dd) of the Act is also reproduced as below:-
"non-journalist newspaper employee" means a person employed to do any work in, or in relation to, any newspaper establishment, but does not include any such person who-
(i) is a working journalist, or
(ii) is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or
(iii) 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.
33. As per Section 2(c), (d) and (dd) referred above, it is clear that workmen in this case, whether journalist or non-journalists, are "newspaper employees" and the management herein is "newspaper establishment". Therefore, workmen and management are governed by The Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955. I.D. No. 03/04 Page 30 of 38
34. Sections 8, 9 and 11 of the Act are reproduced as below:-
Section 8:- Fixation of revision of rates of wages- (1) The Central Government may, in the manner hereinafter provided- (a) fix rates of wages in respect of working journalists;
(b) revise, from time to time, at such intervals as it may think fit, the rates of wages fixed under this section or specified in the order made under section 6 of the Working Journalists (Fixation of Rates or Wages) Act, 1958.
(2) The rates of wages may be fixed or revised by the Central Government in respect of working journalists for time work and for piece work.
Section 9:- Procedure for fixing and revising rates of wages- For the purpose of fixing or revising rates of wages in respect of working journalists under this Act, the Central Government shall, as and when necessary, constitute a Wage Board which shall constitute of-
(a) ....................
(b) ...................
(c) .....................
Section 11:- Powers and Procedure of the Board-
(1) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-
section (2), the Board may exercise all or any of the powers which an Industrial Tribunal constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), exercise for the adjudication of an industrial dispute referred to it and shall, subject to the provisions contained in this Act, and the rules, if any, made thereunder, have power to regulate its own procedure.
(2) ..........................
35. From above Section 8, 9, and 11 of the Act, it implies that it is Central Government which shall fix wages for the journalists, for which purpose it shall constitute a Board, which can act like Industrial Tribunal. I.D. No. 03/04 Page 31 of 38 Similar is the position in case of non-journalist employees under section 13B and 13C of the Act.
36. Section 2(eee) of the Act defines the term "wages". Same is also reproduced as below:-
"wages" means all remuneration capable of being expressed in terms of money, which would, if the term 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 foodgrains or other articles;
(iii) any traveling concession
37. The demand of workmen regarding treating the payment of extra-
duty as overtime and not petty allowance, are covered in the above definition of "wages". As explained above, the wages are to be fixed by the Central Government, for which it can constitute a Wage Board, which can act as an Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, jurisdiction of this Tribunal is impliedly barred to give findings on the issue of treating the payment of extra-duty as overtime and not petty allowance. Issues no.5 is decided accordingly.
38. Findings on issue no. 6 I.D. No. 03/04 Page 32 of 38 Issue no.6 is whether the demand of the workmen for appointment on compassionate ground in the event of death of employee is justified? As far as question of appointment on compassionate ground is concerned, in Ganesh Goel vs Secretary Delhi Development Authority 2007 ( 114) FLR 1011, it had been held a person seeking compassionate appointment has only a right to be considered within the framework of the provisions governing such appointments authorities from time to time. It was also held that such a person has no indefeasable right to be appointed.
39. In General Manager, State Bank of India vs Anju Jain 2008(4) S.C.T 305, Birbati Rani vs State Bank of Patiala, 2008(3) S.C.T.834, C. Rajagopal vs Superintending Engineer, Madurai 2008(4) S.C.T 178 and Steel Authority of India Ltd vs Madhusudan Das & Ors 2009 (1) S.C.T 449, it has been held by their lordships of Hon'ble Supreme court that appointment on compassionate ground is not a matter of right. It is only an enabling measure to support family of the deceased employee under distress or penury to save its member from destitution.
40. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in above authorities, appointment on compassionate ground can not be claimed as a matter I.D. No. 03/04 Page 33 of 38 of right. Therefore, this Tribunal can not give directions to the management in this regard. Issue no.6 is decided accordingly.
41. Findings on issue no.7 Issue no.7 is Whether workmen performing extra night duty are entitled to Pick-up and drop facility from their place of duty to place of residence and vice-versa and whether the ladies staff living outside city be spared from nigh/odd hours shifts ?
42. It is stated in the written statement that all staff who finish their duty between past mid-night to 2.00 am are dropped home by vehicles provided by the office. Rule 2(m) of The Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Rules, 1957 provides that 'night shift' means a shift when any hours of work fall between the hours of 11 P.M. and 5 A.M. As per the version of management in the written statement, they are providing dropping facility for the workers working upto 2 A.M. As per Rule 2(m), referred above, night duty hours fall between 11 P.M. and 5 A.M. Therefore, management is directed to provide dropping facility also to its employees, who work upto 5 A.M. in the night shifts.
43. As regards demand of workmen regarding sparing of ladies staff from night/ odd hours shifts, it is worth mentioning that night shift I.D. No. 03/04 Page 34 of 38 duty is very much a part of employees, working in newspaper establishment and no rule or law has been produced by the workmen that ladies can be spared from such duty. Hence, no such directions can be passed in this regard by this Tribunal. Issue no.7 is decided accordingly.
44. Findings on issue no.8 Issue no.8 is Whether workmen are entitled to atleast one news papers ? A suggestion was given on behalf of workmen to MW 1 that "with a malafide motive to defeat the claim, the management has started providing one newspaper to the employees". The suggestion has been denied by MW 1. However, from the above suggestion, it is clear that now, the management has started providing newspaper to its employees. Therefore, this grievance of the workmen stands satisfied. Hence, there is no need to give directions in this regard. Issue no.8 is decided accordingly.
45. Findings on Issue no.9:-
Issue no.9 is Whether the demand of the workmen that seniority of employee should not be affected by the grant of merit increment is justified ? MW 1 in his cross-examination has denied the suggestion that while giving merit increments, seniorities of the employees have I.D. No. 03/04 Page 35 of 38 been effected. It has been voluntarily stated by MW 1 that 'merit increments' in no way affect the seniority as the grade is not effected.
This statement has been given by management witness on oath. As such, grievance of the workmen in this regard stands satisfied and no directions are necessary to be issued in this regard. Issue no.9 is decided accordingly.
46. Findings on issue no.10 Issue no.10 is As per terms of reference. In view of my findings on above issues, management is directed to extend dropping facility to its employees from 2 A.M. to 5 A.M. in the night shifts. It is also held that non-field staff are entitled to conveyance allowance @ Rs.1500/- pm. No directions are necessary to be passed in respect of other demands of workmen. Reference is answered accordingly and award is passed in these terms.
47. As regards workmen, on whom the award shall be applicable, it is worth noting that on 01.06.2011, a list of workmen being represented by The Press Trust of India Employees' Union, Delhi (Regd.) was filed on 01.06.2011 and copy thereof was supplied to management. On 22.7.11, it was submitted on behalf of management that the same has been verified as submitted by the management. A list of 11 I.D. No. 03/04 Page 36 of 38 workmen was filed for management. It was submitted for the management that workmen mentioned in the list are employed with the management. They were employed with management in Delhi at the time of reference as submitted. As regards workman Sh. Neeraj Bhushan, it was submitted for the management that he was dismissed in 2003 and present is the reference of year 2004. As regards 09 workmen from the list of workmen so supplied, it wa submitted for the management that after the reference, they have been transferred out of Delhi and that they cannot be represented by Press Trust of India Employees' Union, Delhi (Regd.)
48. In order sheet dated 22.07.2011, This tribunal made observation that merely because the workmen had been transferred to places out side of Delhi, they cannot be taken away out of representation by Press Trust of India Employees' Union, Delhi (Regd.). As regards workman Sh. Neeraj Bhushan, it was observed that award will be applicable to him also, if the same is found applicable before his dismissal. It was submitted for the management that workman Sh. Vinod Kumar is under suspension and he is getting 50 % salary as per order of Hon'ble High Court in another case. It was submitted for workman that he is getting 75% salary and that he has not been dismissed and is part of I.D. No. 03/04 Page 37 of 38 the management. It was observed by this Tribunal that on facts as submitted for the parties, there is no bar for Sh. Vinod Kumar being represented by Press Trust of India Employees' Union, Delhi (Regd.).
49. In view of above observation, it is held that the present award shall be applicable on all the workmen as mentioned in the list filed on 01.06.2011 on behalf of workmen being represented by The Press Trust of India Employees' Union, Delhi (Regd.).
50. Copy of the award be sent to GNCT of Delhi for publication.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open courts on 05.10.2011 (MAHAVIR SINGHAL) Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
I.D. No. 03/04 Page 38 of 38