Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Yadav vs Sudhir Agrawal on 25 April, 2022
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia, Amar Nath Kesharwani
- : 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)
ON THE 25th OF APRIL, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 22639 of 2019
Between:-
RAJENDRA YADAV S/O GANGADHAR
YADAV, OCCUPATION: SENIOR SUB
EDITOR, DAINIK BHASKAR INDORE, R/O
271/D SLICE NO. 7 SCHEME NO. 78 NEAR
WATER TANK INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
AND
SUDHIR AGRAWAL OCCUPATION:
MANAGING DIRECTOR DB CORP LIMITED,
1. DAINIK BHASKAR NEWS PAPER, ADDRESS
DWARKA SADAN 6, PRESS COMPLEX MP
NAGAR, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
PRABHANDAK/PRESS MALIK D.B. CORP
LIMITED, DAINIK BHASKAR SAMCHAR
2.
PATR, ADDRESS 4/54, PRESS COMPLEX, AB
ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
SHRI MUKESH MATHUR OCCUPATION:
ESTHANIYE SAMPADAK, DAINIK
3. BHASKAR, INDORE, ADDRESS 4/54, PRESS
COMPLEX, AB ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
VIVEK RUSIA,J. passed the following:-
ORDER
Shri Ketan Vishnar learned counsel for the Petitioner.
- : 2 :-
Shri Jagdish Baheti learned counsel for the Respondents.
**** The petitioner has filed the present petition against the order dated 22.05.2019 whereby the Labour Court has rejected the application under Section 33 of the Industrial Dispute Act.
Under Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as " Act, 1955''), the appropriate Government has sent a reference to the Labour Court to examine the issue of implementation of "Majithia Pay Board" to the petitioner and other similarly working journalist or other newspaper employees working in the establishment of the respondents. During pendency of the aforesaid reference, the petitioner has filed the application under Section 33 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 that the respondents be restrained to change his service conditions without leave of the Court.
Vide impugned order dated 22.05.2017, the Labour Court has dismissed the application on the ground that under Section 17 (2) of the Act, 1955, there is no provision in respect of change of service condition while deciding the question arises as to the amount due under this Act of 1955 to the Newspaper Employee from the employer.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
After the reference sent under Section 17(2) of the Act, 1955, the petitioner has filed the statement claiming implementation of the benefits arising out of the implementation of Majithia Pay Board along with arrears of wages. During the pendency of the
- : 3 :-
reference, the petitioner has apprehended that in order to avoid the liability to pay financial benefits by way of implementation of Majithia Pay Board, the respondents may harass him by way of transfer, termination etc. therefore, he has filed an application under Section 33 of the Industrial Dispute Act. The learned Court has dismissed the application as Section 17(2) of the Act, 1955 does not talk about any change of service condition.
Section 3 of the Act of,1955 is reproduced below:-
3. Act 14 of 1947 to apply to working journalists.--(1) The provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as in force for the time being, shall, subject to the modification specified in sub-
section (2), apply to, or in relation to, working journalists as they apply to, or in relation to, workmen within the meaning of that Act.
(2) Section 25F of the aforesaid Act, in its application to working journalists, shall be construed as if in clause (a) thereof, for the period of notice referred to therein in relation to the retrenchment of a workman, the following periods of notice in relation to the retrenchment of a working journalist had been substituted, namely:-- (a) six months, in the case of an editor, and (b) three months, in the case of any other working journalist.
Learned Labour Court has failed to examine that the Act, 1955 only regulates the certain conditions of service of working employees and other persons working in the Newspaper establishment. Under Section 3, the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act,1947 have been made applicable to the working journalist as they apply to or in relation to the workman within the meaning of this Act., therefore, section 33 of the Industrial Dispute Act applies in the pending reference under Section 17(2) of the Act, 1955. The working journalist are having the same protection as has been given to the workman under the Industrial Dispute Act,1947. Apart from this, Section 16A of the Act, 1955, also gives protection to the working journalist and other employees.
- : 4 :-
16A. Employer not to dismiss, discharge, etc., newspaper employees.--No employer in relation to a newspaper establishment shall, by reason of his liability for payment of wages to newspaper employees at the rates specified in an order of the Central Government under section 12, or under section 12 read with section 13AA or section 13DD, dismiss, discharge or retrench any newspaper employee.
It is the duty of the learned Labour Court that the workmen before the court should not be victimized by the owner of the newspaper because he is claiming benefits due to him as per law. Hence, the impugned order is hereby set aside, Writ Petition is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the Labour Court to decide the application afresh in accordance with the law.
Certified Copy as per law.
( VIVEK RUSIA ) (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE JUDGE
praveen/-
Digitally signed by
PRAVEEN NAYAK
Date: 2022.04.27
19:08:53 +05'30'