Page 1

REPORTABLE  

    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 246 OF 2011

ABP Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.                              .... Petitioner (s)

Versus

Union of India & Ors.   .... Respondent(s)

WITH  

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 382 OF 2011 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 384 OF 2011 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 386 OF 2011 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 408 OF 2011 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 510 OF 2011 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 538 OF 2011 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 514 OF 2011 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 546 OF 2011 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 87 OF 2012

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 264 OF 2012 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 315 OF 2012 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 817 OF 2013

WITH CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 252 OF 2012 IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 538 OF 2011

J U D G M E N T

P.Sathasivam, CJI.

1) These writ petitions, under Article 32 of the Constitution of  

1

Page 2

India,  have  been  filed  by  the  petitioners  (management  of  

various newspapers) praying for a declaration that the Working  

Journalists  and  Other  Newspaper  Employees  (Conditions  of  

Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (in short ‘the  

Act’)  is  ultra  vires as  it  infringes  the  fundamental  rights  

guaranteed  under  Articles  14,  19(1)(a)  and  19(1)(g)  of  the  

Constitution  of  India.   The  petitioners  further  prayed  for  

quashing  of  the  notification  dated  11.11.2011  issued  by  the  

Central Government accepting the recommendations made by  

Justice Majithia Wage Boards for Working Journalists and Non-

Journalist Newspaper and News Agency Employees.

Factual Background:

2) It is pertinent to give a vivid background of the case before  

we advent to decide the issue at hand. Way back in 1955, the  

Government of India enacted the impugned Act to regulate the  

conditions  of  service  of  Working  Journalists  and  in  1974  via  

amendment  for  other  Newspaper  Employees  employed  in  

newspaper establishments.  For the purpose of fixing or revising  

the rates of wages of employees in newspaper establishments,  

the Central  Government is empowered under Sections 9 and  

13C of the Act to constitute two Wage Boards, viz., one for the  

2

Page 3

working  journalists  and  other  for  non-journalist  newspaper  

employees respectively. Likewise, the Act also specifies that the  

Central Government shall, as and when necessary, constitute  

these Wage Boards.  The composition of the Wage Boards is  

specified, as mentioned below:-  

(a)  Three  persons  representing  employers  in  relation  to  

Newspaper Establishments;

(b) Three persons representing working journalists for Wage  

Board under Section 9 and three persons representing non-

journalist  Newspaper  Employees  for  Wage  Board  under  

Section 13C of the Act;

(c) Four independent persons, one of whom shall be a person  

who is, or has been a Judge of the High Court or the Supreme  

Court, and who shall be appointed by the Government as the  

Chairman thereof.

3) It  is  relevant  to note that  since 1955,  six Wage Boards  

have  been  constituted  for  working  journalists  and  four  

Wage Boards for non-journalist  newspaper employees in  

order  to  fix  or  revise  the  rates  of  wages.  The  relevant  

details of the preceding Wage Boards are as under:-

3

Page 4

(i) Divatia Wage Board

Date  of  Appointmen t

Date  of  Acceptanc e

Challenge

02.05.1956 10.05.1957 In Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. vs.  Union  of  India 1959  SCR  12  the  decision of  the Divatia  Wage Board  as well as the constitutional validity  of the Act was challenged before this  Court.  This  Court  set  aside  the  decision  of  the  Wage  Board  dt.  30.04.1957 on the ground that it did  not take into account the capacity of  the industry to pay. As a result of this  decision,  an  ordinance  dated  14.06.1958  was  promulgated  which  provided for  the establishment of  a  Special  Committee  for  making  recommendations  to  the  Central  Government in regard to the rates of  wages  to  be  fixed  for  working  journalists.   Later,  in  September  1958,  the  Working  Journalists  (Fixation  of  Rates  of  Wages)  Act,  1958 was passed by the Parliament.  

(ii) Shinde Wage Board

Date  of  Appointment

Date  of  Acceptanc e

Challenge

12.11.1963/  25.02.1964

27.10.1967 In  Press Trust of India vs.  Union  of India & Ors. (1974) 4 SCC 638,  this  Court  struck  down  the  recommendations  of  the  second  Wage  Board  insofar  as  PTI  was  concerned as unreasonable and far  in  excess  of  what  the  employees  themselves  were  demanding  and  beyond the financial capacity of the  establishment and hence violative of  the  fundamental  rights  guaranteed  under Part III of the Constitution.      

4

Page 5

(iii) Palekar Wage Board

Date  of  Appointment

Date  of  Acceptanc e

Challenge

11.06.1975/  06.02.1976

26.12.1980 The constitution of Wage Board was  challenged  on  20.07.1981  on  the  ground of lack of independence.  In  December  1977,  the  employers’  representatives wrote to the Central  Government  that  they  were  withdrawing  from  the  Wage  Board  as desired by the organizations.  The  government made several efforts to  resolve  the  dead  lock.   On  28.08.1978, Writ Petitions were filed  by  the  Indian  and  Eastern  Newspaper  Society  and  Others  in  the  High  Court  at  Bombay  challenging  the  constitution  of  the  Wage  Boards.   In  order  to  find  a  solution, the President promulgated  on  31.01.1979  the  Working  Journalists  and  other  Newspaper  Employees  (Conditions  of  Service)  and  Miscellaneous  Provisions  (Amendment), Ordinance 1979.  This  ordinance  provided  for  the  constitution of a Tribunal consisting  of  a  person  who  is/or  has  been  a  Judge of the High Court or Supreme  Court  in  place  of  each such Board  and  the  abolition  of  such  Boards  upon  the  constitution  of  such  Tribunals and for the continuance of  the  interim  wages  notified  by  the  Government  after  taking  into  account  the  recommendations  of  such Boards.          

(iv) Bachawat Wage Board

Date  of  Appointme

Date  of  Acceptanc

Challenge

5

Page 6

nt e 17.07.1985 31.08.1989 The award was challenged in Indian  

Express  Newspapers  (Pvt.)  Ltd.  and Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.  1995 Supp (4) SCC 758.       

(v) Manisana Wage Board

Date  of  Appointmen t

Date  of  Acceptanc e

Challenge

09.09.1994 5.12.2000/1 5.12.2000  by  Notification.

This  Wage  Board’s  award  was  challenged  in  Karnataka  and  Delhi  High Court.  The Court while deciding  the challenge struck down the award  on  the  ground  that  the  proviso  to  Section  12(2)  was  not  followed.  However,  despite  the  Manisana  Award  being  struck  down  it  was  implemented  by  all  the  newspaper  establishments.         

(vi) Narayana Kurup Wage Board - Majithia Wage Board  from 04.03.2009

Date  of  Appointmen t

Date  of  Acceptanc e

Challenge

24.05.2007 31.12.2010 With  a  slight  modification,  the  government  notified  it  on  11.11.2011.  Its  report is  accepted  and impugned in these proceedings  on various asserted grounds.      

Constitution of Justice Majithia Wage Boards

4) The Government  constituted  two Boards on 24.05.2007,  

one for the Working Journalists and the other for Non-Journalist  

Newspaper  Employees  under  Sections  9  and  13C  of  the  Act  

under the Chairmanship  of Dr.  Justice Narayana Kurup.   The  

6

Page 7

Chairman  and  six  of  the  remaining  nine  members  were  

common  to  both  the  Wage  Boards.   The  remaining  three  

members each representing the Working Journalists and Non-

Journalist Newspaper Employees had been nominated by their  

respective Unions.  The Wage Boards were given three years’  

duration to submit their Reports to the Central Government.   

5) However, due to sudden change of events, Dr. Justice K.  

Narayana Kurup, the Chairman of the aforesaid Wage Boards  

submitted  his  resignation  effective  from  31.07.2008  after  

completing more than one year’s tenure. Subsequently, Justice  

Gurbax Rai Majithia, a retired judge of the High Court of Mumbai  

was  appointed  as  the  common  Chairman  of  the  two  Wage  

Boards for Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees  

who took over the charge on 04.03.2009. Another  significant  

change in the composition of the Wage Boards occurred due to  

sudden demise of Shri Madan Phadnis representing the All India  

Newspaper Employees Federation, who was a member of the  

Wage Board for Non-Journalist  Newspaper Employees.   In  his  

place,  Shri  M.C.  Narasimhan,  as  nominated  by  the  same  

Federation, was substituted as member of the Board for Non-

Journalist Newspaper Employees.  Since then, the composition  

7

Page 8

of the two Wage Boards has been as under:-    

Wage Board for Working Journalists

1. Justice Gurbax Rai Majithia, retired Judge of the High  Court of Bombay at Mumbai

Chairman

2. Shri K.M. Sahni, Former Secretary, Ministry of Labour  and Employment

Independent  Member

3. Shri B.P. Singh Independent  Member

4. Shri P.N. Prasanna Kumar Independent  Member

5. Shri  Naresh  Mohan,  representing  Indian  Newspaper  Society

Representing  Employers

6. Shri Gurinder Singh, representing All India Small and  Medium Newspapers

Representing  Employers

7. Shri  Prataprai,  Tarachand  Shah,  representing  Indian  language Newspaper Association

Representing  Employers

8. Shri  K.  Vikram  Rao,  President,  Indian  Federation  of  Working Journalists

Representing  Working  Journalists

9. Dr. Nand Kishore Trikha, President, National Union of  Journalists (India)

Representing  Working  Journalists

10. Shri  Suresh  Akhouri,  President,  Indian  Journalists  Union

Representing  Working  Journalists

Wage Board for Non-Journalist Newspaper Employees

1. Justice Gurbax Rai Majithia, retired Judge of the High  Court of Bombay at Mumbai

Chairman

2. Shri K.M. Sahni, Former Secretary, Ministry of Labour  and Employment

Independent  Member

3. Shri B.P. Singh Independent  Member

4. Shri P.N. Prasanna Kumar Independent  Member

5. Shri  Naresh  Mohan,  representing  Indian  Newspaper  Society

Representing  Employers

6. Shri Gurinder Singh, representing All India Small and  Medium Newspapers

Representing  Employers

7. Shri  Prataprai,  Tarachand  Shah,  representing  Indian  language Newspaper Association

Representing  Employers

8. Shri  M.C.  Narasimhan,  Vice  President,  All  India  Newspaper Employees Federation

Representing  Non-Journalist  Newspaper  Employees

9. Shri  Uma  Shankar  Mishra,  Vice  President,  National  Federation of Newspaper Employees

Representing  Non-Journalist  Newspaper  Employees

10. Shri M.S. Yadav, General  Secretary, Confederation of  Newspapers  and  News  Agencies  Employees’  

Representing  Non-Journalist  

8

Page 9

Organizations. Newspaper  Employees

6) Owing  to  the  unexpected  change  of  the  members  

constituting  the  Wage  Boards,  they  could  not  finalize  and  

submit their reports within the prescribed period of three years  

as originally notified i.e., by 23.05.2010.  As such, their term  

was then extended up to 31.12.2010. It is this recommendation  

submitted  by  the  Wage  Boards,  which  was  subsequently  

accepted  by  the  Central  Government  and  notified  on  

11.11.2011 that is impugned in the given proceedings.

Discussion

7) In  succinct,  the  petitioners  herein,  challenged  the  

recommendations  of  the  Wage  Boards  and  the  notification  

dated 11.11.2011 mainly on the following grounds:-

(i) Constitutional validity of the Act and the Amendment  

Act, 1974.

(ii) Improper Constitution of the Wage Boards  

(iii) Irregularity  in  the  procedure  adopted  by  Majithia  

Wage Boards.

(iv) Majithia  Wage  Boards  overlooked  the  relevant  

aspects  and  considered  extraneous  factors  while  

9

Page 10

drafting the recommendations  

We  shall  examine  and  deliberate  distinctively  on  each  

contested  point  surfaced  by  the  petitioners  herein  in  the  

succeeding paragraphs.  

8) Heard Mr. Anil B. Divan, Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Mr. P.P. Rao,  

Mr. Aman Lekhi, Mr. S.S. Ramdas, Mr. Brijender Chahar, learned  

senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Gopal Jain, Mr. Akhil Sibal,  

Mr.  Nachiket  Joshi,  Mr.  Anil  Shrivastav,  Ms.  Bina  Gupta,  Mr.  

Manoj  Goel,  Mr.  E.C.  Agrawala,  learned  counsel  for  the  

petitioners, Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned Solicitor General for  

the  official  respondents,  Mr.  Colin  Gonsalves,  learned  senior  

counsel and Mr. Parmanand Pandey and Mr. Thampan Thomas,  

learned  counsel  for  other  respondents  –  journalists/non-

journalists.  

Constitutional  validity of  the Act and Amendment Act,  

1974

9) At  the  outset,  almost  all  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

petitioners,  challenged the  vires of  the Act  on twin grounds.  

Firstly,  the  Act  infringes  the  guaranteed  fundamental  rights  

under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. Secondly, the Act  

10

Page 11

has become obsolete with the passage of time.  

10) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that  

misplaced classification and singling out of a specific business  

industry being the Newspaper Industry is violative of Article 14  

since the Act only regulates the print media and not electronic  

media.  Also,  in  the  era  of  globalization  and  liberalization,  to  

shackle  one  part  of  the  industry  with  regulations  is  

unreasonable, unfair  and arbitrary and, therefore, violative of  

Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g).

11) Learned  senior  counsel  for  the  petitioners  besides  

objecting  to  the  constitutionality  of  the  Wage  Boards  also  

placed heavy reliance on the fact that in other industries such  

as cotton, sugar, tea, coffee, rubber, cement, jute, all the Wage  

Boards have been abolished over a period of time (sugar being  

the last in 1989).  They further emphasized on the fact that the  

National  Commission  on  Labour  in  2002  also  unequivocally  

recommended that there was no need for a Wage Board to be  

constituted for any industry.

12) Likewise,  it  is  the  stand  of  the  petitioners  that  due  to  

significant socio-economic changes having taken place in the  

11

Page 12

Indian  economy  after  de-regulation  and  privatization,  the  

necessity for Wage Boards has eclipsed. In order to establish  

this, learned counsel referred to the object and purpose of the  

Act  i.e.  to  ameliorate  the  conditions of  service.  According to  

learned senior counsel, this purpose has been achieved today  

as  journalists  are  paid  a  fair  wage  and  also  given  a  

compensation  package.   Resultantly,  the  requirement  for  

controlling  and  regulating  the  conditions  of  service  of  

newspaper employees that was prevalent in earlier phase (1955  

onwards) is no longer required.  

13) Precisely, learned counsel for the petitioners stressed on  

the ensuing four points to substantiate their claim that there is  

a complete change in the scenario since 1955 when the Press  

Commission  was  constituted  to  go  into  the  conditions  of  

employment of working journalists:  

(a) The journalists  are an  essential  and vital  part  of a  

newspaper establishment. As an outcome, newspaper  

establishments  require  skills,  qualification  and  

expertise  to  ensure  the  best  content  as  this  is  

necessary  for  attracting,  retaining  and  increasing  

viewership which, in turn, requires the full support of  

12

Page 13

journalists.

(b) Through  bilateral  negotiations  and  discussions,  the  

petitioners have entered into contracts  with  a  vast  

majority  of  journalists  and  offered  them  wages,  

salaries  and  compensation  package  to  retain  top  

class talent.

(c) The newspaper industry itself has undergone a sea  

change – people ‘sleep with the news’ (due to the  

advent  of  news  channels  on  television).  Further,  

printing technology has changed as a consequence  

and  the  newspapers  now  offer  a  better  quality  

product.   Manpower  management  has  been  

strengthened to attract the best talent.

(d) There is greater competition from the internet, digital  

media  in  news  channels  and  from  foreign  

newspapers, therefore, there is already an obligation  

on  the  print  media  to  retain  the  best  talent  by  

providing fine working conditions.   

In brief, it was contended that in the present times of economic  

liberalization, the Act has become obsolete. As a result, Wage  

13

Page 14

Boards have lost their utility and purpose for which they were  

set  up  and  the  1955  Act  have  become  outdated  and  have  

outlived its utility especially with the advent of the electronic  

media and other avenues.  

14) Moreover, learned senior counsel submitted that the track  

record and report of the Wage Board is another pointer to this  

effect.   Most of the decisions of the Wage Board have been  

quashed.  The recommendations of the first Wage Board were  

set aside by this Court in  Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. vs.  

Union of India 1959 SCR 12 and the previous Manisana Wage  

Board (Vth Wage Board) was also set aside by the Karnataka  

High Court and the Delhi High Court on effective grounds. In  

view of the above assertions and taking into account the ground  

realities, the petitioners prayed that they must be given a free  

hand  and  should  not  be  burdened  with  an  outdated  and  

antiquated statute. Henceforth, they pleaded for abolishment of  

the Wage Boards and to declare the Act unconstitutional.

15) In support of the above proposition, learned counsel  for  

14

Page 15

the petitioners also relied on the decisions of this Court in John  

Vallamattom vs.  Union of India (2003) 6 SCC 611,  Malpe  

Vishwanath Acharya vs.  State  of  Maharashtra (1998)  2  

SCC 1 and Indian Handicrafts Emporium vs. Union of India  

(2003) 7 SCC 589.

16) Mr.  Mohan  Parasaran,  learned  Solicitor  General  and  Mr.  

Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel effectively responded  

to all  the contentions raised by the petitioners, by relying on  

Constitution  Bench  decisions  of  this  Court  and  prayed  for  

rejection of their arguments.

17) This  is  not  the  first  time  when  the  aspect  as  to  the  

Constitutional  Validity  of  the  Act  as  being  ultra  vires the  

Constitution  and  violative  of  fundamental  rights  is  being  

encountered  by  this  Court.  It  has  already  been  expressly  

decided  by  a  Constitution  Bench  of  this  Court  in  Express  

Newspaper (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India AIR 1958 SC 578 and  

has been held to be  intra vires the Constitution. The relevant  

portions of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:

Challenge qua Article 19(1)(a):

“153.  In  the  present  case  it  is  obvious  that  the  only  justification for the enactment of the impugned Act is that it  

15

Page 16

imposes reasonable restrictions in the interests of a section of  the  general  public  viz.  the  working  journalists  and  other  persons employed in the newspaper establishments. It does  not fall within any of the categories specified in Article 19(2)  viz.

“In  the  interest  of  the  security  of  the  State,  friendly  relations  with  foreign  States,  public  order,  decency  or  morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or  incitement to an offence.”

Article 19(2)  being thus out  of  the question,  the only  point  that falls to be determined by us is whether the provisions of  the  impugned  Act  in  any  way  take  away  or  abridge  the  petitioners,  fundamental  right  of  freedom  of  speech  and  expression.

154.  It  was  contended  before  us  by  the  learned  Attorney- General that it was only legislation directly dealing with the  right mentioned in Article 19(1)(a) that was protected by it. If  the  legislation  was  not  a  direct  legislation  on  the  subject,  Article 19(1)(a) would have no application, the test being not  the effect or result of legislation but its subject-matter…”

*** *** ***

“160. …It could therefore hardly be urged that the possible  effect of the impact of these measures in conceivable cases  would  vitiate  the  legislation  as  such.  All  the  consequences  which have been visualized in this behalf by the petitioners  viz. the tendency to curtail circulation and thereby narrow the  scope  of  dissemination  of  information,  fetters  on  the  petitioners  freedom to  choose the  means of  exercising  the  right,  likelihood  of  the  independence  of  the  press  being  undermined  by  having  to  seek  government  aid;  the  imposition of penalty on the petitioner's right to choose the  instruments for exercising the freedom or compelling them to  seek  alternative  media  etc,  would  be  remote  and  depend  upon various factors which may or may not come into play.  Unless these were the direct or  inevitable  consequences of  the measures enacted in the impugned Act, it would not be  possible to strike down the legislation as having that effect  and operation. A possible eventuality of this type would not  necessarily  be  the  consequence  which  could  be  in  the  contemplation of the legislature while enacting a measure of  this type for the benefit of the workmen concerned.

161. Even though the impugned Act enacts measures for the  benefit  of  the  working  journalists  who  are  employed  in  newspaper  establishments,  the  working  journalists  are  but  

16

Page 17

the vocal organs and the necessary agencies for the exercise  of the right of free speech and expression, and any legislation  directed  towards  the  amelioration  of  their  conditions  of  service must necessarily affect the newspaper establishments  and  have  its  repercussions  on  the  freedom  of  press.  The  impugned Act can therefore be legitimately characterized as  a measure which affects the press, and if the intention or the  proximate  effect  and  operation  of  the  Act  was  such  as  to  bring  it  within  the  mischief  of  Article  19(1)(a)  it  would  certainly  be  liable  to  be  struck  down.  The  real  difficulty,  however, in the way of the petitioners is that whatever be the  measures enacted for  the benefit  of the working journalists  neither  the  intention  nor  the  effect  and  operation  of  the  impugned act is to take away or abridge the right of freedom  of speech and expression enjoyed by the petitioners.

162. The gravamen of the complaint of the petitioners against  the impugned Act, however, has been the appointment of the  Wage Board  for  fixation  of  rates  of  wages  for  the  working  journalists and it is contended that apart from creating a class  of privileged workers with benefits and rights which were not  conferred upon other employees of industrial establishments,  the act has left the fixation of rates of wages to an agency  invested with arbitrary and uncanalised powers to impose an  indeterminate burden on the wage structure of the press, to  impose such employer-employee relations as in its discretion  it thinks fit and to impose such burden and relations for such  time  as  it  thinks  proper.  This  contention  will  be  more  appropriately  dealt  with  while  considering  the  alleged  infringement  of  the  fundamental  right  enshrined  in  Article  19(1)(g).  Suffice  it  to  say  that  so  far  as  Article  19(1)(a)  is  concerned this contention also has a remote bearing on the  same  and  need  not  be  discussed  here  at  any  particular  length.”

Challenge qua Article 19(1)(g)

“209. This attack of the petitioners on the constitutionality  of the impugned Act under Article 19(1)(g) viz. that it violates  the  petitioners'  fundamental  right  to  carry  on  business,  therefore fails except in regard to Section 5(1)(a)(iii) thereof  which being clearly severable from the rest of the provisions,  can be struck down as unconstitutional  without  invalidating  the other parts of the impugned Act.”

18) In  succinct,  the  Constitution  Bench  of  this  Court  in  the  

aforesaid  case  held  that  the  impugned  Act,  judged  by  its  

17

Page 18

provisions, was not such a law but was a beneficent legislation  

intended to regulate the conditions of service of the working  

journalists and the consequences that were adverted to in that  

case could not be the direct and inevitable result of it. It also  

expressed the view that although there could be no doubt that  

liberty  of  the  press was an essential  part  of the freedom of  

speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and if  

the law were to single out the press to lay prohibitive burdens,  

it would fall outside the protection afforded by Article 19(2), the  

impugned Act which directly affected the press fall outside the  

categories of protection mentioned in Article 19(2) had not the  

effect of taking away or abridging the freedom of speech and  

expression of  the  petitioners  and did  not,  therefore,  infringe  

Article  19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Nor could it be held to be  

violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution in view of the test  

of reasonableness laid down by this Court.

19) Alternative challenge to the constitutionality of the Act was  

on the basis that selecting working journalists for giving favored  

treatment  is  violative of  Article  14 as  it  is  not  a  reasonable  

classification  as  permissible  in  the  aforesaid  Article.  The  

Constitution Bench dealt with this aspect in the following terms:

18

Page 19

Challenge qua Article 14

“210.  Re: Art  14.-  The question as formulated is that the  impugned Act selected the working journalists  for  favoured  treatment by giving them a statutory guarantee of gratuity,  hours  of  work  and leave  which  other  persons  in  similar  or  comparable employment had not got and in providing for the  fixation  of  their  salaries  without  following  the  normal  procedure envisaged in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The  following propositions are advanced:

1.  In  selecting  the  Press  industry  employers  from  all  industrial employers governed by the ordinary law regulating  industrial  relations  under  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947  and  Act  1  of  1955  the  impugned  Act  subjects  the  Press  industry employers to discriminatory treatment.

2. Such discrimination lies in

(a)  singling  out  newspaper  employees  for  differential  treatment;

(b) saddling them with a new burden in regard to a section  of their workers in matters of gratuities, compensation, hours  of work and wages;

(c) devising a machinery in the form of a Pay Commission  for fixing the wages of working journalists;

(d) not prescribing the major criterion of capacity to pay to  be taken into consideration;

(e)  allowing the Board in  fixing the wages to adopt  any  arbitrary  procedure  even  violating  the  principle  of  audi  alteram partem;

(f)  permitting  the  Board  the  discretion  to  operate  the  procedure of the Industrial Disputes Act for some newspapers  and any arbitrary procedure for others;

(g) making the decision binding only on the employers and  not on the employees, and

(h)  providing  for  the  recovery  of  money  due  from  the  employers in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.

3. The classification made by the impugned Act is arbitrary  and  unreasonable,  insofar  as  it  removes  the  newspaper  

19

Page 20

employers  vis-à-vis  working  journalists  from  the  general  operation  of  the Industrial  Disputes Act,  1947 and Act 1 of  1955.

*** *** ***

212. We have already set out what the Press Commission had  to say in regard to the position of the working journalists in  our country. A further passage from the Report may also be  quoted in this context:

“It is essential to realize in this connection that the work of  a journalist demands a high degree of general education and  some  kind  of  specialized  training.  Newspapers  are  a  vital  instrument  for  the  education  of  the  masses  and  it  is  their  business to protect  the rights  of  the people,  to reflect  and  guide public opinion and to criticize the wrong done by any  individual  or  organization  however  high  placed.  They  thus  form an essential adjunct to democracy. The profession must,  therefore, be manned by men of high intellectual and moral  qualities. The journalists are in a sense creative artists and  the  public  rightly  or  wrongly,  expect  from  them a  general  omniscience and a capacity to express opinion on any topic  that may arise under the sun. Apart from the nature of their  work the conditions under which that work is to be performed,  are  peculiar  to  this  profession.  Journalists  have  to  work  at  very high pressure and as most of the papers come out in the  morning, the journalists are required to work late in the night  and  round  the  clock.  The  edition  must  go  to  press  by  a  particular time and all the news that breaks before that hour  has  got  to  find  its  place  in  that  edition.  Journalism  thus  becomes a highly specialized job and to handle it adequately  a person should be well-read,  have the ability  to size up a  situation and to arrive quickly at the correct conclusion, and  have the capacity to stand the stress and strain of the work  involved.  His  work  cannot  be  measured,  as  in  other  industries,  by the quantity  of  the output,  for  the quality  of  work is an essential element in measuring the capacity of the  journalists. Moreover, insecurity of tenure is a peculiar feature  of this profession. This is not to say that no security exists in  other professions but circumstances may arise in connection  with  profession  of  journalism  which  may  lead  to  unemployment in this profession, which would not necessarily  have that result in other professions. Their security depends  to some extent on the whims and caprices of the proprietors.  We have come across cases where a change in the ownership  of the paper or a change in the editorial policy of the paper  has resulted in a considerable change in the editorial staff. In  the case of  other  industries  a change in  the proprietorship  does  not  normally  entail  a  change in  the  staff.  But  as  the  

20

Page 21

essential purpose of a newspaper is not only to give news but  to  educate  and  guide  public  opinion,  a  change  in  the  proprietorship  or  in  the  editorial  policy  of  the  paper  may  result and in some cases has resulted in a wholesale change  of the staff on the editorial side. These circumstances, which  are peculiar to journalism must be borne in mind in framing  any  scheme for  improvement  of  the  conditions  of  working  journalists.” (para 512).

213. These were the considerations which weighed with the  Press Commission  in  recommending  the  working  journalists  for special treatment as compared with the other employees  of newspaper establishments in the matter of amelioration of  their conditions of service.

*** *** ***

215.  …The  working  journalists  are  thus  a  group  by  themselves  and could  be  classified  as such apart  from the  other  employees  of  newspaper  establishments  and  if  the  legislature  embarked  upon  a  legislation  for  the  purpose  of  ameliorating  their  conditions  of  service  there  was  nothing  discriminatory  about  it.  They could  be  singled out  thus  for  preferential  treatment  against  the  other  employees  of  newspaper establishments. A classification of this type could  not come within the ban of Article 14. The only thing which is  prohibited  under  this  article  is  that  persons belonging  to a  particular group or class should not be treated differently as  amongst  themselves  and no  such charge could  be  levelled  against  this  piece  of  legislation.  If  this  group  of  working  journalists  was specially  treated in  this  manner  there  is no  scope  for  the  objection  that  that  group  had  a  special  legislation enacted for its benefit or that a special machinery  was created, for fixing the rates of its wages different from  the  machinery  employed  for  other  workmen  under  the  Industrial  Disputes Act, 1947. The payment of retrenchment  compensation and gratuities, the regulation of their hours of  work and the fixation of the rates of their wages as compared  with  those  of  other  workmen  in  the  newspaper  establishments  could  also  be  enacted  without  any  such  disability and the machinery for fixing their rates of wages by  way of constituting a Wage Board for the purpose could be  similarly  devised.  There  was  no  industrial  dispute  as  such  which had arisen or was apprehended to arise as between the  employers and the working journalists in general,  though it  could  have  possibly  arisen  as  between  the  employers  in  a  particular  newspaper  establishment  and  its  own  working  journalists. What was contemplated by the provisions of the  impugned  Act,  however,  was a  general  fixation  of  rates  of  wages  of  working  journalists  which  would  ameliorate  the  

21

Page 22

conditions  of  their  service  and  the  constitution  of  a  Wage  Board for this purpose was one of the established modes of  achieving  that  object.  If,  therefore,  such  a  machinery  was  devised for their benefit, there was nothing objectionable in it  and  there  was  no  discrimination  as  between  the  working  journalists  and  the  other  employees  of  newspaper  establishments in that behalf…

216.  …  Even  considering  the  Act  as  a  measure  of  social  welfare  legislation  the  State  could  only  make  a  beginning  somewhere  without  embarking  on  similar  legislations  in  relation  to  all  other  industries  and if  that  was done in  this  case no charge could be levelled against the State that it was  discriminating  against  one  industry  as  compared  with  the  others.  The  classification  could  well  be  founded  on  geographical basis or be according to objects or occupations  or  the  like.  The  only  question  for  consideration  would  be  whether there was a nexus between the basis of classification  and  the  object  of  the  Act  sought  to  be  challenged.  In  our  opinion, both the conditions of permissible classification were  fulfilled in the present case. The classification was based on  an  intelligible  differentia  which  distinguished  the  working  journalists  from  other  employees  of  newspaper  establishments and that differentia had a rational relation to  the object sought to be achieved viz. the amelioration of the  conditions of service of working journalists.”

20) The above position has been reiterated by this Court in the  

form of observations in Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd.  

vs. Union of India (2004) 11 SCC 526.  The relevant portion of  

the said judgment is extracted hereunder:

“29…The observations in the judgment were pressed into  service in support of the contention that freedom of speech  and expression would be adversely affected by continuing the  definition  of  “excluded  employee”  in  respect  of  the  newspaper  industry  which  has  been  singled  out  for  harsh  treatment.  As  can  be  seen  from  above,  observations  have  been made in a different context. In any case, the decision,  far from supporting the contention of the petitioners, in fact,  to an extent lends support to the benefit  that was given to  the employees of the newspaper industry in the year 1956 as  a result of the impugned provision. It has to be remembered  that  in spreading information,  the employees of  newspaper  

22

Page 23

industry play a dominant role and considering the employees  of newspaper industry as a “class”, this benefit was extended  almost  at  the  same time when the  Working Journalists  Act  was enacted. Thus, there can be no question of any adverse  effect on the freedom of press. The financial burden on the  employer, on facts as herein, cannot be said to be a “harsh  treatment”.  The  contention  that  now  the  petitioners  are  unable  to  bear  the  financial  burden  which  they  have been  bearing for the last over forty-five years is wholly irrelevant. It  is for the petitioners to manage their affairs if they intend to  continue with their activity as newspaper establishment.

*** *** ***

31. This Court noticed that the journalists are but the vocal  organs  and the  necessary  agencies  for  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  free  speech  and  expression  and  any  legislation  directed  towards  the  amelioration  of  their  conditions  of  service must necessarily affect the newspaper establishments  and  have  its  repercussions  on  the  freedom  of  press.  The  impugned Act can, therefore, be legitimately characterised as  a measure which affects the press and if the intention or the  proximate  effect  and  operation  of  the  Act  was  such  as  to  bring  it  within  the  mischief  of  Article  19(1)(a),  it  would  certainly  be  liable  to  be  struck  down.  The  real  difficulty,  however, in the way of the petitioners is that whatever be the  measures enacted for  the benefit  of the working journalists  neither  the  intention  nor  the  effect  and  operation  of  the  impugned Act is to take away or abridge the right of freedom  of  speech  and  expression  enjoyed  by  the  petitioners.  The  question  of  violation  of  right  of  freedom  of  speech  and  expression  as  guaranteed  under  Article  19(1)(a)  in  the  present case on account of additional burden as a result of  the impugned provision does not arise.

*** *** ***

34.  In  the  light  of  the  aforesaid  principles,  in  Express  Newspaper the Court considered whether the Act impugned  therein  violated  the  fundamental  right  guaranteed  under  Article  14.  It  was  observed  that  in  framing  the  Scheme,  various circumstances peculiar to the press had to be taken  into  consideration.  These  considerations  weighed  with  the  Press  Commission  in  recommending  special  treatment  for  working  journalists  in  the  matter  of  amelioration  of  their  conditions  of  service.  The  position  as  prevailing  in  other  countries  was  also  noticed.  In  a  nutshell,  the  working  journalists were held as a group by themselves and could be  

23

Page 24

classified  as  such.  If  the  legislature  embarked  upon  a  legislation for the purpose of ameliorating their conditions of  service, there was nothing discriminatory about it. They could  be singled out for preferential treatment. It was opined that  classification  of  this  type could not  come within the ban of  Article 14. Considering the position in regard to the alleged  discrimination between press industry employers on one hand  and the other industrial employers on the other, it was said  that even considering the Act as a measure of social welfare  legislation, the State could only make a beginning somewhere  without  embarking  on  similar  legislations  in  relation  to  all  other industries and if that was done in this case no charge  could be levelled against the State that it was discriminating  against  one  industry  as  compared  with  the  others.  The  classification could well be founded on geographical basis or  be according to objects or occupations or the like. The only  question  for  consideration  would  be  whether  there  was  a  nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the  Act sought to be achieved. Both the conditions of permissible  classification were fulfilled. The classification was held to be  based  on  an  intelligible  differentia  which  had  a  rational  relation  to  the  object  sought  to  be  achieved  viz.  the  amelioration  of  the  conditions  of  service  of  working  journalists. The attack on constitutionality of the Act based on  Article 14 was negatived.

35. Though challenge in the aforesaid case was to special  treatment  to working journalists  but  what  is to be seen is,  that the press industry was held to be a class by itself. The  definition of “newspaper employee” takes into its fold all the  employees who are employed to do any work in, or in relation  to,  any  newspaper  establishment.  The  decision  in  Express  Newspaper  case amply  answers  the main  contention  about  the  press  industry  having  been  singled  out,  against  the  petitioners.  This  decision  also  holds  that  to  provide  social  welfare legislation and grant benefit, a beginning had to be  made somewhere without embarking on similar legislation in  relation  to  other  industries.  The  fact  that  even after  about  half a century similar benefit  has not been extended to the  employees of any other industry, will not result in invalidation  of benefit given to employees of press industry. It is not for us  to decide when, if at all, to extend the benefit to others. In  view of the aforesaid, we are unable to accept the contention  that the impugned provision is violative of Article 14 on the  ground that  it  singles out  newspaper  industry  by excluding  income test only in regard to the said industry.

36. Apart from the fact that it may not be always possible  to grant to everyone all benefits in one go at the same time,  it seems that the impugned provision and the enacting of the  

24

Page 25

Working Journalists Act was part of a package deal and that  probably  is  the  reason for  other  newspaper  establishments  not challenging it and the petitioners also challenging it only  after  lapse of  so many years.  Further,  Sections  2(i),  4  and  Schedule I of the Provident Fund Act show how gradually the  scope  of  the  Act  has  been  expanded  by  the  Central  Government  and  the  Act  and  Scheme  made  applicable  to  various branches of industries. From whatever angle we may  examine,  the attack on the constitutional  validity  based on  Article 14 cannot be accepted.”

Challenge qua Amendment Act, 1974

21) The petitioners herein have also challenged the  vires  of  

the Amendment Act,  1974 on the ground that extending the  

benefit of the Act to employees other than working journalists is  

against  the  object  that  was  sought  to  be  achieved  by  the  

original Act since the benefits to other newspaper employees  

has no rational nexus between the differentia and the object  

sought  to  be  achieved.  In  this  regard,  as  already  discussed,  

challenge as to the singling out of the newspaper industry per  

se was  rejected  by  the  Constitution  Bench  in  Express  

Newspaper (P) Ltd. (supra) and the newspaper industry was  

held to be a class by itself.  All that the 1974 amendment did  

was  to  only  bring  the  other  employees  of  the  newspaper  

industry (i.e. non-working journalists) into the ambit of the Act  

and extend the benefits of the Act to them. Thus, the same is  

also covered as per  the reasoning of the Constitution Bench  

25

Page 26

decision  of  this  Court.  Therefore,  the  challenge  as  to  the  

Amendment Act, 1974 stands disallowed.

22) Although,  the  aspect  of  violation  of  Article  14  was  

intricately decided by the Constitution Bench, it is the stand of  

the petitioners herein that  while there may have been some  

justification for dealing only with newspaper establishments in  

1955, however, with the revolution in information technology,  

there  is  no justification for  confining  regulation  only  to  print  

media as in the existing scenario persons engaged in the same  

avocation (journalism) would be subject to different restrictions  

and  would  be  unreasonably  hampered  in  the  social  and  

industrial relations with each other. Further, it is submitted by  

the  petitioners  that  the  classification  between  journalists  in  

newspaper  establishments  and  others  does  not  bear  any  

relationship with the object. Therefore, the continuation of such  

a provision would create a disadvantaged class i.e. newspaper  

establishments  without  there  being  a  rational  basis  for  the  

same  and  consequently  affecting  both  the  incentive  and  

capacity to achieve the object for which classification is made.  

After the very lapse of a long period from the date of enactment  

of the Act and the connected change of circumstances during  

26

Page 27

this  period  has  made  the  law  discriminatory  as  it  is  now  

arbitrarily confined to a selected group out of a large number of  

other persons similarly situated. Henceforth, it is the stand of  

the petitioners that  the grab of constitutionality that  the Act  

may  have  possessed  earlier  has  worn  out  and  its  

constitutionality is open to a successful challenge.

23) While this argument may be as appealing as it sounds, yet  

we are not inclined to interfere on this point of challenge in  

order to maintain the equity among parties. It is important that  

this Court appreciates the realm of Article 14 of the Constitution  

in the light of the interest of both employers and the employees  

and not in one-sided manner. The argument of the petitioners  

that it is violative of Article 14 is one version of the story i.e.  

employers  grievance,  whereas  this  Court  must  look  into  the  

perspective of employees also while determining the issue at  

hand.   

24) For the ensuing two reasons, this Court is opting for not to  

interfere  on  this  alleged  ground  of  challenge.  Firstly,  the  

petitioners cannot espouse the grievance of those employees  

working  in  the  electronic  media  for  non-inclusion  and,  more  

particularly, when those employees are not before this Court.  

27

Page 28

Secondly, the fact that similar benefits are not extended to the  

employees of other similar industry will not result in invalidation  

of benefit given to the employees of press industry. Recalling  

that media industry is still an upcoming sector unlike the press  

industry,  which is  as  ancient  as our independence itself,  the  

scope for potential policies in future cannot be overruled.  In  

view of the same, this ground of challenge is rejected.  

25) As regards the second ground of challenge, i.e., the Act  

over the passage of time has outlived its utility and the object  

that was sought to be achieved originally has become obsolete  

especially  in  view  of  the  fact  that  Wage  Boards  for  other  

industries have been abolished,  it  is  our  cogent opinion that  

mere  passage  of  time  by  itself  would  not  result  in  the  

invalidation of the Act and its object.  The validity once having  

been upheld by a Constitution Bench of this Court in  Express  

Newspapers  (P)  Ltd.  (supra),  the  same  cannot  be  now  

challenged saying that it  has outlived its object and purpose  

and has been worn out by the passage of time.  The principles  

laid down in  Motor General Traders vs.  State of Andhra  

Pradesh (1984)  1  SCC  222  and  Ratan Arya  vs.  State  of  

Tamil Nadu (1986) 3 SCC 385 are squarely inapplicable as has  

28

Page 29

been held in the context of identical factual scenario.

26) When this Court was considering the case of a newspaper  

establishment  qua para 82 of the Employees’ Provident Funds  

Scheme  in  Express  Publications  (Madurai)  Ltd.  (supra),  

the said judgment also puts the challenge as to the vires of the  

Act like the one made by the petitioners in the present case,  

but beyond pale of any doubt, it consciously reiterates the spirit  

of law laid down in Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. (supra).

27) The petitioners relied on the Report of the Second National  

Commission  of  Labour  to  contend  that  the  Act  has  become  

archaic.   In  this  regard,  it  is  relevant  to  note  that  the  

aforementioned Report is not relevant, as the Government has  

not  accepted  the  said  Report  insofar  as  the  Statutory  Wage  

Boards are concerned.  Thus, any observation in the said Report  

as to the non-requirement of Wage Boards generally, cannot be  

the basis for not complying with the statutory obligations under  

the  Act.  Insofar  as  the  2002 National  Commission of  Labour  

Report is concerned, as stated above, the same has not been  

accepted  by  the  Government  of  India,  in  respect  of  the  

functioning of the Act.

29

Page 30

28) In  the  light  of  the  aforesaid  discussion,  we  are  of  the  

opinion that  the  challenge as  to the  vires of  the Act  on the  

premise of it being ultra vires the Constitution and violative of  

fundamental  rights  is  wholly  unfounded,  baseless  and  

completely untenable.  

29) It  is  true  that  newspaper  industry,  with  the  advent  of  

electronic media, continues to face greater challenges similar to  

the ones as observed by the Press Commission as noted in the  

Express  Newspaper  (P)  Ltd.  (supra) enumerated  

hereinabove.   Thus,  the  contention  of  the  petitioners  that  

though the newspaper industry may be growing, the growth of  

the  electronic  media  is  relatively  exponential,  in  fact,  

substantiates  the  very  necessity  of  why  a  wage  board  for  

working  journalists  and  other  newspaper  employees  of  the  

newspaper industry should exist.

Improper Constitution of the Wage Boards  

30) As reiterated hitherto, the Wage Boards constituted under  

Sections 9 and 13C of the Act are required to be comprised of  

10 members i.e. one Chairman, three independent members,  

three representatives for employers and three representatives  

30

Page 31

for employees. On behalf of the petitioners herein (newspaper  

management), it was contended that there was a defect in the  

constitution of  the  Wage Boards as  Mr.  K.M. Sahani  and Mr.  

Prasanna Kumar were not independent members thus, it fatally  

vitiates the constitution and proceedings of the Majithia Wage  

Boards.  On  the  other  hand,  it  was  pointed  out  by  learned  

Solicitor General for the Union of India and the employees that  

the  constitution  of  the  Wage  Boards  have  been  undertaken  

strictly  in  accordance  with  the  Act  and  the  “Independent  

Members”, so required, under Sections 9(c) and 13C(c) of the  

Act  have been appointed in accordance with the law. Let  us  

examine this point of strife based on the factual matrix.

31) The  petitioners’  main  ground  of  challenge  to  Mr.  K.M.  

Sahni’s independence is that since at the relevant time he was  

a  former  Secretary  of  Ministry  of  Labour  and  Employment,  

Government  of  India  and  during  his  tenure  the  decision  to  

constitute the Wage Board was taken and, thus, he cannot be  

expected to be an independent and free from bias. It is seen  

from the materials placed on record by the Union of India that in  

order  to operationalize the Boards, Shri  K.M. Sahni,  who had  

superannuated  as  Secretary  to  Government  of  India  on  

31

Page 32

31.12.2006 was appointed as Member-Secretary on 24.01.2007  

for  a  period  of  three  years  or  till  the  duration  of  the  Wage  

Board, whichever is earlier.  Merely because a person was in the  

employment of the Government, he does not cease to become  

“independent”  for  the  purposes  of  being  an  independent  

member of the Committee to recommend the fixing of wages.  

32) Similar  fact  underlying  this  issue has  been  the  subject-

matter  of  this  Court  in  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh vs.  

Narayana  Velur  Beedi  Manufacturing  Factory (1973)  4  

SCC  178,  and  it  is  only  necessary  to  set  out  the  summary  

thereof given by A.N. Grover, J.:  

“9. In  our  judgment  the view which has prevailed with the  majority  of  the  High  Courts  must  be  sustained.  The  committee  or  the  advisory  board  can  only  tender  advice  which  is  not  binding  on  the  Government  while  fixing  the  minimum wages or revising the same as the case may be. Of  course,  the  Government  is  expected,  particularly  in  the  present democratic set-up, to take that advice seriously into  consideration and act on it but it is not bound to do so. The  language  of  Section  9  does  not  contain  any  indication  whatsoever  that  persons  in  the  employment  of  the  Government  would  be  excluded  from  the  category  of  independent  persons.  Those  words  have  essentially  been  employed in contradistinction to representatives of employer  and  employees.  In  other  words,  apart  from  the  representatives of employers and employees there should be  persons  who  should  be  independent  of  them.  It  does  not  follow  that  persons  in  the  service  or  employ  of  the  Government were meant to be excluded and they cannot be  regarded  as  independent  persons  vis-à-vis  the  representatives of the employers and employees. Apart from  this the presence of high government officials who may have  actual working knowledge about the problems of employers  

32

Page 33

and  employees  can  afford  a  good  deal  of  guidance  and  assistance in formulating the advice which is to be tendered  under Section  9 to the appropriate  Government.  It  may be  that  in  certain  circumstances  such persons  who are  in  the  service  of  the  Government  may  cease  to  have  an  independent  character  if  the  question  arises  of  fixation  of  minimum  wages  in  a  scheduled  employment  in  which  the  appropriate  Government  is  directly  interested.  It  would,  therefore,  depend  upon  the  facts  of  each  particular  case  whether the persons who have been appointed from out of  the  class  of  independent  persons  can  be  regarded  as  independent or not. But the mere fact that they happen to be  government officials or  government servants will  not divest  them of  the character  of  independent  persons.  We are not  impressed  with  the  reasoning  adopted  that  a  government  official  will  have  a  bias,  or  that  he  may  favour  the  policy  which the appropriate Government may be inclined to adopt  because when he is a member of an advisory committee or  board he is expected to give an impartial  and independent  advice and not merely carry out what the Government may  be  inclined  to  do.  Government  officials  are  responsible  persons and it  cannot be said that they are not capable of  taking a detached and impartial view.”

33) Consequently, merely because Shri K.M. Sahni was a part  

of the Government that took the decision to set up the Wage  

Boards, does not automatically follow that he ceased to be an  

“independent” member of the Wage Boards. We are satisfied  

that Shri  K.M. Sahni is an independent member of the Board  

and cannot be considered to be “biased” in any manner.

34) The petitioners also allege that Mr. P.N. Prasanna Kumar,  

as an experienced journalist and having been associated with  

various  journalistic  institutions  in  his  long journalistic  career,  

cannot  be  considered  to  be  an  “independent”  member  and,  

therefore,  was  biased  in  favour  of  the  employees.   Learned  

33

Page 34

Solicitor General has rightly pointed out that  only vague and  

general  allegations  have  been  alleged  against  him  and  no  

specific allegations that he acted in a manner that was biased  

against the employers has been levied by the petitioners.

35) It  is  well-settled  that  mere  apprehension  of  bias  is  not  

enough and there must be cogent evidence available on record  

to  come  to  the  conclusion.   Reference  may  be  made  to  

Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. Girja Shankar Pant  

(2001) 1 SCC 182 in the following words:

“10.  The word  “bias” in  popular  English  parlance stands  included  within  the  attributes  and  broader  purview  of  the  word  “malice”,  which  in  common  acceptation  means  and  implies  “spite”  or  “ill-will”  (Stroud’s  Judicial  Dictionary,  5th  Edn.,  Vol.  3)  and  it  is  now  well  settled  that  mere  general  statements will not be sufficient for the purposes of indication  of ill-will. There must be cogent evidence available on record  to come to  the conclusion  as to whether  in  fact  there  was  existing a bias which resulted in the miscarriage of justice.”

36) This Court, in State of Punjab vs. V.K. Khanna (2001) 2  

SCC 330, has held as follows:

“8. The test,  therefore,  is as to whether there is a mere  apprehension of bias or there is a real danger of bias and it is  on this  score that the surrounding circumstances must and  ought  to  be  collated  and  necessary  conclusion  drawn  therefrom. In the event, however, the conclusion is otherwise  that  there  is  existing  a  real  danger  of  bias  administrative  action cannot be sustained. If on the other hand allegations  pertain  to  rather  fanciful  apprehension  in  administrative  action, question of declaring them to be unsustainable on the  basis therefor, would not arise.”

34

Page 35

37) The  contention  of  the  petitioners  alleging  bias  against  

independent members of the Wage Boards, being based merely  

on their past status, is entirely baseless in law and amounts to  

imputing  motives.  Further,  the  petitioners  have  nowhere  

established or even averred that the independent members are  

guilty of legal bias as expressed in Perspective Publications  

vs.  State of Maharashtra (1969) 2 SCR 779, that is, making  

their  recommendations  on  the  basis  of  wholly  extraneous  

considerations or personal or pecuniary benefit.

38) On perusal of the materials available, we are satisfied that  

the Wage Boards have functioned in a fully balanced manner.  

Besides,  it  is  a  fact  that  the  petitioners  had  challenged  the  

constitution of the Wage Board before the High Court of Delhi,  

admittedly, the High Court had declined to grant interim relief.  

The said order declining/refusing to grant interim relief attained  

finality as the petitioners did not choose to challenge it before  

this Court.  Thereafter, the petitioners have participated in the  

proceedings and acquiesced themselves with the proceedings  

of the Board.  In view of the fact that they have participated in  

the  proceedings  without  seriously  having  challenged  the  

constitution as well as the composition, the petitioners cannot  

35

Page 36

now be allowed to challenge the same at this stage. More so, it  

is also pertinent to take note of the fact that the petitioners  

herein  opted  for  challenging  the  independence  of  the  

nominated  independent  members  only  after  the  

recommendations  by  the  Wage  Boards  were  notified  by  the  

Central Government.  

39) Hence, the attack of the petitioners on the independence  

of  the  appointed  independent  members  by  saying  that  they  

were not sufficiently neutral, impartial or unbiased towards the  

petitioners herein, is incorrect in the light of factual matrix and  

cannot  be  raised  at  this  point  of  time  when  they  willfully  

conceded to the proceedings. Consequently, we are not inclined  

to accept this ground of challenge.

40) Apart  from  the  challenge  to  the  independence  of  the  

members,  the  petitioners  also  contended  that  two  separate  

Wage  Boards  ought  to  have  been  constituted  instead  of  a  

common wage board.  It is relevant to point out that ever since  

the 1974 amendment only a common wage board was being  

constituted.   The  Financial  Memorandum  accompanying  the  

Working Journalists  (Conditions of Service)  and Miscellaneous  

Provisions (Amendment) Bill, 1974 specifically states that “the  

36

Page 37

intention is to constitute Wage Boards under the said Section 9  

and proposed Section  13C as far as possible at the same time  

and to have a common Chairman and a common Secretariat for  

both the Boards”.  Further, it is brought to our notice that the  

Palekar  Tribunal  (1980),  Bachawat  Wage  Board  (1989)  and  

Manisana  Wage  Board  (2000)  constituted  after  1974  

amendment were all common Boards/Tribunal for both working  

journalists  and  non-journalists.   Though  the  members  

representing  employers  were  common,  they  were  not  

incapacitated  in  any  manner  as  is  being  contended  by  the  

petitioners.   They  were  having  two  votes  as  they  were  

representing the employers in both the Boards.

41) In addition, the representatives from the employers’ side  

are common in both the Wage Boards as all types of newspaper  

employees, either working journalists or non-journalists found to  

be  working  under  common  employers.   Having  common  

representatives of the employers on the two Wage Boards are  

expected to be favorable to the employers as they can make a  

fair assessment of the requirements of the working journalists  

and  non-journalist  newspaper  employees  of  the  newspaper  

industry as a whole.  However, as the two Wage Boards have  

37

Page 38

separate  entities  meant  for  working  journalists  and  non-

journalist  newspaper  employees,  there  cannot  be  common  

representatives  who  can  protect  the  interest  and  represent  

working  journalists  as  well  as  non-journalist  newspaper  

employees.   Therefore,  members  representing  working  

journalists were nominated to the Wage Board for the working  

journalists.   Similarly,  members  representing  non-journalist  

newspaper employees were nominated to the Wage Boards for  

non-journalist  newspaper  employees.   As  aforesaid,  for  

administrative  convenience,  four  independent  members,  

including  the  Chairman  were  common  for  both  the  Wage  

Boards.  In our cogent view, this arrangement in no way affects  

the  interest  of  the  employers  and  the  challenge  of  the  

petitioners in this regard is unfounded.  

Irregularity in the procedure followed by Majithia Wage  

Boards

42) Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out to a series  

of factual aspects to demonstrate that there existed irregularity  

in  the  decision  making  process  by  the  Majithia  Wage  Board  

which  was  attacked  as  ultra  vires the  Act  and  contrary  to  

procedure  adopted  by  the  predecessor  Wage  Boards.   In  

38

Page 39

succinct,  the  stand  of  the  petitioners  is  that  Majithia  Wage  

Board  Report  was  prepared  in  a  hasty  manner  and  

subsequently,  the  recommendations  have  been  accepted  by  

the  Central  Government  without  proper  hearing  or  affording  

opportunity to all the stakeholders. Whereas the respondent –  

Union of India clearly contended otherwise and submitted that  

the  impugned  Wage  Boards  throughout  adopted  a  fair  

procedure, which stands the test of natural justice. Besides, it is  

the stand of the respondents that the representatives of the  

management were not cooperating but were merely attending  

the Wage Board proceedings, therefore, the Chairman was not  

getting adequate aid and help from the representatives of the  

newspaper owners.

43) Broadly,  the  petitioners’  foremost  contention is  that  the  

Wage Boards have not functioned in accordance with the law  

inasmuch as no questionnaire was issued to elicit information to  

determine the  capacity to  pay and that  principles  of natural  

justice were not followed in conducting the proceedings and for  

arriving at  the recommendations, which was the accustomed  

procedure of previous Wage Boards. At the outset, it is relevant  

to point out that under Section 11(1) of the Act, Wage Board  

39

Page 40

has  special  powers  to  regulate  its  own procedure.   It  is  not  

obligatory for the Wage Boards to follow the exact procedure of  

the earlier Wage Boards and as such there is no requirement in  

law to follow a strictly laid down procedure in its functioning.  

Besides, as long as it follows the principles of natural justice and  

fairness, its functioning cannot be called into question on the  

ground of irregularity in the procedure. Now, let us examine the  

submissions of the petitioners in this light.

44) It is brought to our notice that detailed questionnaire was  

issued  on  24.07.2007.   The  petitioners  in  their  opening  

arguments  contended  that  no  questionnaire  was  issued.  

However, the Union of India placed voluminous documents to  

demonstrate that a detailed questionnaire was in fact issued on  

24.07.2007 and that this questionnaire was commented upon  

and it was corrected also and further respondents also received  

replies pursuant to the same. The petitioners in their rejoinder  

have  attempted  to  make  a  feeble  argument  that  the  said  

questionnaire  was  issued  by  the  secretariat  and  not  by  the  

Wage Boards, which is fit to be rejected.  

45) It is also brought to our notice that several attempts were  

made by the Wage Boards to get the relevant information from  

40

Page 41

the  employers  but  many  of  the  petitioners  had  not  given  

financial  data  and  abstained  from  attending  the  Board’s  

proceedings.  Records  produced  show  that  the  questionnaire  

was  sent  to  all  the  subscribers  listed  in  the  directory  of  

newspaper establishments published by INS for the year 2008-

09  and  the  list  supplied  by  the  PTI  for  sending  financial  

information from 2000-01 to 2009-10.  Regular follow up with  

the employers was made and series of letters were issued to  

collect  financial  information.   Apart  from  the  questionnaire,  

notices inviting representation as per Section 10(1) of the Act  

were published in  125 newspapers.   Further,  on 05.07.2010,  

summons were issued to around one hundred and forty stake  

holders  and  they  were  given  final  chance  to  submit  the  

information within fifteen days of the summons.  In addition to  

this,  a  two page simplified questionnaire  was also issued on  

02.03.2010.   

46) Consequently, the allegation that only 40 establishments  

have been used as parameters which is under-representative of  

the industry is incorrect.  In fact, as has been detailed in the  

Report,  the  data  from  newspaper  establishments  was  not  

forthcoming  (vide  pages  100-101  of  Majithia  Wage  Board  

41

Page 42

Report).  With all these efforts, financial information could be  

collected from only sixty-six establishments and after scrutiny,  

it was found that financial information received from only forty  

establishments was useful in developing an overall view of the  

financial  status  of  the  newspaper  industry.  Therefore,  it  was  

only upon much effort and repeated requests that the data in  

respect of 40 establishments could be collected by the Wage  

Board.  Besides, these 40 establishments are representatives of  

the  different  class  of  newspaper  establishments  that  are  

carrying on business  in  the  country  and in  addition detailed  

submissions  by  representative  groups  such  as  the  Indian  

Newspaper  Society  (INS)  were also considered.   Thus,  it  can  

certainly  be  construed  that  these  representative  bodies  

presented an overview of the whole newspaper industry, apart  

from  the  information  being  collected  from  the  individual  

establishments.

47) From the records, we furnish the following chronology of  

events:

“Letter  dated  28.12.2007  by  Mr.  Naresh  Mohan  containing “Comments on Draft Questionnaire”

Letters dated 14.01.2008 and 18.01.2008 requesting for  extension  of  time  for  submission  of  response  to  

42

Page 43

questionnaire

Letter  dated  14.02.2008  extending  time  limit  for  submission of response to questionnaire till 30.06.2008

Response  of  Hitavada  Shramik  Sangh,  Nagpur  dated  23.06.2008 to the questionnaire

Response of the Times of India and Allied Publications’  Employees’ Union to the questionnaire

Letters  by  various  Employees’  Union  requesting  for  extension  of  time  for  submission  of  response  to  questionnaire

Letter dated 14.11.2008 addressed to all the members  of the Wage Boards seeking their views on extending the  last date for submission of completed questionnaire up  to 28.02.2009

Letter  dated  04.12.2008  by  Mr.  Naresh  Mohan  expressing no objection for extending the last date for  submission of completed questionnaire up to 28.02.2009

Letters  dated  17.12.2008,  18.12.2008,  19.12.2008  addressed  to  the  members  of  the  Wage  Board,  stakeholders  informing  extension  of  last  date  for  submission of completed questionnaire up to 28.02.2009

Letters  dated  19.03.2009,  08.06.2009,  09.06.2009  addressed  to  the  members  of  the  Wage  Board,  stakeholders  informing  extension  of  last  date  for  submission of completed questionnaire up to 30.06.2009

Letter  dated 03.07.2009 addressed to the Wage Board  members  to  prevail  upon  their  constituents  to  submit  their response to the questionnaire

Response of Lokmat Shramik Sanghatana, Nagpur dated  04.02.2009 to the questionnaire

Response of  the Tribune Employees Union,  Chandigarh  dated 25.07.2009 to the questionnaire

Response of  National  Union of  Journalists  (India)  dated  31.08.2009 to the questionnaire

Letter  dated  01.09.2009  by  Chairman,  Wage  Boards  requesting the members of the Wage Boards to prevail  upon their constituents to submit their response to the  questionnaire

43

Page 44

Response  of  the  Press  Trust  of  India  Ltd.  dated  29.09.2009 to the submissions dated 30.06.2009 made  by  Federation  of  PTI  Employees’  Union  and  to  the  questionnaire

Letter dated 12.05.2010 forwarding copies of responses  to the questionnaire received by the Wage Boards to all  the members.

The notice dated 16.11.2007 issued under Sections 10(1)  and 13D of the Act was published in 125 newspapers

Considering  the  requests  and representations  received  from various  stakeholders,  the  time period  for  making  representation in terms of Sections 10(1) and 13D of the  Act was extended till 30.06.2008

The time period for  making representation  in terms of  Sections 10(1) and 13D of the Act was further extended  till 31.10.2008

The time period for  making representation  in terms of  Sections  10(1)  and  13D  of  the  Act  extended  till  28.02.2009

The time period for  making representation  in terms of  Sections  10(1)  and  13D  of  the  Act  was  extended  till  30.06.2009

The time period for  making representation  in terms of  Sections  10(1)  and  13D  of  the  Act  was  extended  till  06.08.2009

Notice  dated  09.07.2010  was  given  to  all  the  stakeholders for final hearing before the Wage Boards on  26.07.2010 to 01.08.2010”

48) In addition to the aforesaid chronology of events, a perusal  

of Chapter 3 of the Majithia Wage Board recommendations will  

clearly indicate that the procedure adopted by the Wage Boards  

did, in fact, give ample opportunities to the stakeholders to give  

representations and financial data, etc. so that the same may  

44

Page 45

be  considered  by  the  Wage  Boards  for  making  their  

recommendations.   However,  many  of  the  petitioners  have  

never bothered to attend the proceedings of the Wage Board  

and submitted financial data.  

49) The details of the meetings and oral hearings conducted  

by  the  Wage  Boards  (culled  out  from  the  Wage  Board  

proceedings) are as follows:

“30.06.2007 First meeting of the wage boards was held.

02-04.08.2007 Second meeting of the wage boards was held.

16.11.2007 Notice under Sections 10(1) and 13D of the Act  was  issued  to  all  newspaper  establishments,  working  journalists,  non-journalists  newspaper  and  news  agency  employees  to  make  representation in writing within eight weeks from  the  date  of  notice  stating  the  rates  of  wages  which,  in  the  opinion  of  the  capacity  of  the  employer  to  pay  the  same  or  to  any  other  circumstance,  whichever  may seem relevant  to  them.

08.01.2008 Government made a reference to Wage Board for  fixing interim rate of wages in terms of Section  13A of the 1955 Act.

12  &  13.06.2008

Third  meeting  of  the  Wage  Boards  held  to  discuss interim rates of wages

28.06.2008 Fourth meeting of the Wage Boards was held to  consider the issue of  interim rates of  wages to  the  employees  of  the  newspaper  industry  and  gave its recommendation fixing the interim rate  of  wages  @30%  of  the  basic  pay  w.e.f.  08.01.2008

03.10.2008 Cabinet approved the proposal to grant interim  rates of  wages at the rate of  30% of the basic  wage to newspaper employees w.e.f. 8th January,  

45

Page 46

2008.

24.10.2008 S.O.  2524(E)  and  S.O.  2525(E)  notification  on  interim rates of wages published in the Gazette  of India extraordinary.

5-6.05.2009 Fifth meeting of Wage Boards

31.07.2009 Sixth meeting of Wage Boards

07.09.2009 Seventh meeting of Wage Boards

Oral hearings

6-10.10.2009 – Oral hearing in Jammu & Kashmir

26-27.10.2009 – Oral hearing at Chandigarh

8-9.11.2009 – Oral hearing at Patna

14.11.2009 Eighth meeting of Wage Boards

Oral hearings

11-12.11.2009 – Oral hearing at Lucknow

23-24.11.2009 – Oral hearing at Ahmedabad

8-9.12.2009 – Oral hearing at Hyderabad

11-13.12.2009 – Oral hearing at Chennai

18.12.2009 Ninth meeting of Wage Boards

Oral hearings

29-30.12.2009 – Oral hearing at Bangalore

23.02.2010 Tenth meeting of Wage Boards

02.03.2010 In view of the fact that very few responses were  received to the detailed questionnaire circulated  by  the  Wage  Board,  it  was  decided  that  a  simplified  questionnaire  requiring  information  about  annual  turnover,  cost,  etc.  will  be  circulated  to  various  newspaper  establishments  registered  with  PTI  and  INS.   Accordingly,  the  simplified  questionnaire  was  sent  to  various  news establishments.

Oral hearings

46

Page 47

13-14.03.2010 – Oral hearing at Jaipur

27-28.03.2010 – Oral hearing at Bhopal

8-10.04.2010 – Oral hearing at Mumbai and Pune

27-28.04.2010 – Oral hearing at Bhubaneshwar

07.05.2010 Eleventh meeting of Wage Boards

30.06.2010 Twelfth meeting of Wage Boards

Oral hearings

12-13.07.2010 – Oral hearing at Kolkata

20-21.07.2010 – Oral hearing at Guwahati

26.07.2010 to 01.08.2010 – Oral hearing at Delhi

17-19.08.2010 – Oral hearing at Delhi

06.09.2010 – Oral hearing at Delhi

05.07.2010 Summons  dated  05.07.2010  issued  under  Section  11(3)(b)  and  Section  11(8)  of  the  Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Section 3  of the 1955 Act.

21.09.2010 Thirteenth meeting of Wage Boards

22.09.2010 Fourteenth meeting of Wage Boards

07.12.2010 Draft report was circulated to all the members of  the Wage Board for their comments and views

20-24.12.2010 Meeting of the Wage Board to discuss the draft  report

30.12.2010 Notes of dissent were submitted by

1. Shri K.M. Sahni

2. Shri  N.K.  Trikha,  Shri  Vikram  Rao,  Shri  Suresh  Akhouri  (Representatives  of  working journalists)

3. Shri Uma Shankar Mishra, Shri M.S. Yadav,  Shri  M.C.  Narasimhan (Representatives  of  non-journalists)

4. Shri Prasanna Kumar

47

Page 48

31.12.2010 Final Report submitted to Government.”

50) The  petitioners’  main  ground  of  challenge  vis-à-vis  the  

procedure adopted by the impugned Wage Boards is that they  

were  not  given  reasonable  time  to  reflect  on  the  issues.  

However, we have carefully examined all the proceedings of the  

Wage  Boards  and  we  are  satisfied  that  the  Wage  Boards  

conducted a series of meetings and gave ample opportunities  

to the employers.   The employers were given opportunity of  

both written and oral  representations to  make  their  point  of  

view known to the Board and consequently the decision making  

process stands valid. In this respect, we are of the view that the  

petitioners cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own  

wrong and impugn the recommendations of the Wage Boards  

as not being based on their data when they eluded to submit  

the said data in the first place.

51) In  respect  of  the  petitioners’  argument  that  the  

‘Classification’  of  newspaper  establishments  and  newspaper  

agencies  adopted  by  the  Wage  Boards  is  arbitrary  and  not  

supported by the majority,  it  is  brought to our notice that  a  

perusal  of  the  resolution  adopted  on  21.12.2010  shows that  

48

Page 49

representatives of employees agreed for 11 classifications and  

representatives  of  employers  opposed  the  said  pattern  of  

classification.   Later,  the  classification  of  the  newspaper  

establishments  was  made  into  eight  classes  on  the  basis  of  

Gross Turnover:

Class Gross Revenue

I Rs. 1000 crore and above

II Rs. 500 crore and above but less than Rs. 1000  crore

III Rs.  100 crore  and above  but  less than Rs.  500  crore

IV Rs.  50  crore  and  above  but  less  than  Rs.  100  crore

V Rs. 10 crore and above but less than Rs. 50 crore

VI Rs. 5 crore and above but less than Rs. 10 crore

VII Rs. 1 crore and above but less than Rs. 5 crore

VIII Less than Rs. 1 crore

Therefore, if at all anybody is aggrieved by the recommendation  

of  the  Wage  Board  to  adopt  eight  classifications,  it  is  the  

employees  and  not  the  employers.   Further,  no  prejudice  is  

caused  to  the  employers  and  they  cannot  make  this  as  a  

ground to challenge the report.

49

Page 50

52) The  petitioners  also  contended  by  relying  upon  two  

resolutions passed by the Wage Board that the Wage Board was  

not  allowed  to  function  independently  and  was  treated  with  

contempt by the Secretariat of the Wage Board and the officials  

of the Wage Board.  One of the resolutions relied upon by the  

petitioners dealt with an issue pertaining to raising of exorbitant  

travel bill.  It is brought to our notice that it was in this context  

that the Chairman and Members of the Wage Board expressed  

their concern that issues pertaining to the Wage Board should  

not  be  directly  dealt  with  by  the  Ministry  and  it  has  to  be  

referred to the Ministry by the Secretariat after obtaining the  

permission  of  the  Chairman.   The  other  resolution/minutes  

record  the  proceedings  of  the  meeting  with  the  Minister  for  

Labour  and  Employment.   These  two  resolutions  cannot  be  

relied  upon  to  contend  that  the  Board  was  not  allowed  to  

function independently and was treated with contempt.  These  

two  resolutions  have  no  bearing  on  the  ultimate  

recommendations  made  by  the  Board  and,  thus,  cannot  be  

relied upon by the petitioners to impugn the recommendations  

themselves.  

53) Numerous such incidental contentions vis-à-vis procedure  

50

Page 51

adopted  by  the  Wage  Boards  were  alleged  which,  in  our  

considered view, is not of such grave nature that  it  calls  for  

withdrawing the recommendations of Wage Boards. In this light,  

after  having  exhaustively  gone  through  the  record  of  

proceedings and various written communications, we are fully  

satisfied  that  the  Wage  Boards  proceedings  had  been  

conducted  and  carried  out  in  a  legitimate  approach  and  no  

decision of the Wage Board is perceived to having been taken  

unilaterally or arbitrarily. Rather all decisions were reached in a  

coherent  manner  in  the  presence  of  all  the  Wage  Board  

members after having processed various statistics and we find  

no irregularity in the procedure adopted by the impugned Wage  

Boards.  

Majithia Wage Boards overlooked the relevant aspects  

and  considered  extraneous  factors  while  drafting  the  

recommendations  

54) It is the view of the petitioners that the recommendation of  

Justice  Majithia  Wage  Boards  is  defective  and  faulty  and  

deserves  to  be  rejected  at  the  outset  as  it  overlooked  the  

relevant  aspects  and  considered  extraneous  factors  while  

drafting the impugned report.  The first  ground on which the  

51

Page 52

report is alleged to be defective is that  the members of the  

Wage Board failed to consider the crucial element of capacity to  

pay of the individual newspaper establishments as it  wrongly  

premised its analysis of the capacity to pay of ‘gross revenue’  

while approving the impugned report.  

55) In Express Newspaper (P) Ltd case (Supra), this Court  

held that the capacity of the newspaper industry to pay is one  

of the essential  circumstances to be taken into consideration  

while  fixing  rates  of  wages  under  the  Act.  In  that  case,  the  

decision of the Wage Board was set aside on the ground that it  

failed to consider the capacity of the industry to pay the revised  

rates  of  wages.  Consequently,  Section  10(2)  of  the  Act  was  

inserted  which  gives  the  statutory  recognition  to  the  

requirement  of  taking  into  consideration  the  capacity  of  the  

employer to pay.

56) Chapter  XIV,  titled  Capacity  to  pay  of  the  Newspaper  

industry (A Financial Assessment) of the Justice Majithia Report,  

elaborately  discusses  on  the  aspect  of  capacity  to  pay.  

However,  it  is  the stand of the petitioners that  although the  

Report  purportedly  examines  the  capacity  to  pay,  such  

evaluation is directly contrary to the principles and accepted  

52

Page 53

material factors which the Report itself identifies as governing a  

legally sound consideration of the capacity to pay. The relevant  

portion of the report in pages 101 to 102 is as under:-

“The gross revenue of newspaper establishments comprises  revenue  through  advertisements,  circulation  and  other  sources relating to newspaper activities and miscellaneous  income accrued from investments, interests, rent etc. The  gross revenue can be taken as one of the indicators to judge  the  health  of  the  newspaper  establishments.  Strictly  speaking  several  discounted  factors  are  required  to  be  taken in to consideration from the gross revenues to make  actual  assessments  of  the  capacity  of  the  newspaper  establishments. But in absence of such parameters, it was  decided to rely broadly on gross revenue.”

57) The petitioners major point of reliance is surfaced on the  

observation in the report which acknowledges that  there are  

other  factors  along  with  gross  revenue  which  need  to  be  

considered  for  determining  the  capacity  to  pay  of  the  

establishments  which  the  report  did  not  ultimately  consider  

thus it will be appropriate to reject the report.   

58) On the other hand, it is the stand of the Union of India that  

in  the  absence  of  availability  of  such  parameters  for  the  

assessment  of  capacity  to  pay  of  the  newspaper  

establishments,  it  is  judicially  accepted  methodology  to  

determine the same on the basis of gross revenue and relied on  

the observations in Indian Express Newspapers (Pvt.) Ltd.  

(supra):-

53

Page 54

“16…In view of the amended definition of the “newspaper  establishment” under Section 2(d) which came into operation  retrospectively  from  the  inception  of  the  Act  and  the  Explanation added to Section 10(4), and in view further of the  fact that in clubbing the units of the establishment together,  the Board cannot be said to have acted contrary to the law  laid  down  by  this  Court  in  Express  Newspapers  case,  the  classification  of  the  newspaper  establishments  on  all-India  basis for the purpose of fixation of wages is not bad in law.  Hence  it  is  not  violative  of  the  petitioners’  rights  under  Articles  19(1)(a)  and  19(1)(g)  of  the  Constitution.  Financial  capacity  of  an all-India  newspaper  establishment  has to  be  considered on the basis of the gross revenue and the financial  capacity of all the units taken together. Hence, it cannot be  said  that  the  petitioner-companies  as  all-India  newspaper  establishments  are  not  viable  whatever  the  financial  incapacity  of  their  individual  units.  After  amendment  of  Section  2(d)  retrospectively  read  with  the  addition  of  the  Explanation to Section 10(4), the old provisions can no longer  be pressed into  service to contend against  the grouping of  the units of the all-India establishments, into one class.”

59) After  perusing the  relevant  documents,  we are  satisfied  

that comprehensive and detailed study has been carried out by  

the  Wage  Board  by  collecting  all  the  relevant  material  

information  for  the  purpose  of  the  Wage  Revision.  The  

recommendations are arrived at  after  weighing the  pros and  

cons of various methods in the process and principles of the  

Wage Revision in the modern era. It cannot be held that the  

wage structure recommended by the Majithia  Wage Board is  

unreasonable.  

60) The other  issue in  regard to which there was elaborate  

submission is the issue pertaining to recommendations of the  

54

Page 55

Wage Board in regard to news agencies. It is the stand of the  

petitioners that even though this Court had expressly held that  

news agencies, including PTI, stood on a separate footing from  

newspapers  inter  alia because  they  did  not  have  any  

advertisement revenue and, hence, the wages will have to be  

fixed separately and independently for the news agencies, the  

impugned Wage Boards failed to take note of the said relevant  

aspect.   

61) Learned counsel for the respondent contended by stating  

that capacity to pay of news agencies was determined on the  

basis  of the  capacity  to  earn  of the news agencies  in  every  

Wage Board. It was further submitted that the burden of revised  

wages was met  by the news agencies  on every occasion by  

revising  the  subscription  rate.  Thereby  submitting  that  the  

recommendation vis-à-vis the news agencies was a reasoned  

one.  

62) This Court has a limited jurisdiction to look into this aspect.  

The interference is allowed to a limited extent to examine the  

question  as  to  whether  the  Wage Board  has  considered  the  

55

Page 56

capacity to pay of the News Agencies. It would be inapposite for  

this Court to question the decision of the specialized board on  

merits especially when the Board was constituted for this sole  

purpose.

63) The  second  point  of  contention  of  petitioners  is  of  

introducing new concepts such as ‘variable pay’ in an arbitrary  

manner.  Regarding variable pay recommended by the Majithia  

Wage Board, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that  

there  is  no basis  for  providing payment  of  variable  pay and  

equally  there  is  no  basis  for  providing  variable  pay  as  a  

percentage of basic pay which makes the payment of variable  

pay open-ended.  According to them, the recommendation in  

this  regard  is  totally  unreasonable,  irrational  and  places  an  

extra  and  unnecessary  burden  on  the  newspaper  

establishments.  Consequently,  it  was  asserted  that  there  is  

complete  non-application  of  mind  to  insert  the  so-called  

variable  pay  concept  (similar  to  Grade  Pay  of  Sixth  Pay  

Commission)  in  the  Majithia  Wage  Board’s  recommendation,  

even though the basic conditions, objectives and anomalies are  

absent.   

64) However,  the  stand  of  the  respondents  is  that  there  is  

56

Page 57

gradation of variable pay and allowances according to the size  

of  the  establishments  wherein  smaller  establishments  are  

required  to  pay  at  a  lower  rate  compared  to  larger  

establishments.   It  may be pointed out that  in the Manisana  

Wage Board, which is the predecessor to the Majithia Board, did  

recommend a similar dispensation though it did not specifically  

call  it  variable  pay.   Manisana Wage Board  recommended a  

certain percentage of basic pay for the newspaper employees,  

which  is  similar  to  variable  pay  in  the  Majithia  Wage  Board  

recommendations.  While such dispensation was included in the  

basic pay in the Manisana Wage Board instead of being shown  

separately,  the Majithia  Wage Board categorized “basic  pay”  

and  “variable  pay”  separately.   Accordingly,  the  concept  of  

“variable pay” is not newly introduced, though the terminology  

may have differed in Manisana and Majithia Wage Boards.  The  

Wage Boards have followed well-settled  norms while  making  

recommendations about variable pay. Further, the explanation  

to Section 2(eee)  which defines “wages” specifically includes  

within  the  term  “wages”  “new  allowances”,  if  any,  of  any  

description fixed from time to time.  Therefore, the Wage Board  

was  well  within  its  jurisdiction  to  recommend  payment  of  

57

Page 58

‘variable pay’.

65) There was also a submission on behalf of the petitioners  

that  Majithia  Wage  Board  has  simply  copied  the  

recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, which is  

not correct.  We have carefully scrutinized all the details.  It is  

clear  that  the  recommendations  of  the  Sixth  Central  Pay  

Commission have not been blindly imported/relied upon by the  

Majithia Wage Board.  The concept of ‘variable pay’ contained  

in the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission  

has been incorporated into the Wage Board recommendations  

only to ensure that the wages of the newspaper employees are  

at  par  with  those  employees  working  in  other  Government  

sectors.  Such incorporation was made by the Majithia Wage  

Board after careful consideration, in order to ensure equitable  

treatment  to employees of newspaper establishments,  and it  

was well within its rights to do so.

66) It is further seen that the Wage Board has recommended  

grant of 100% neutralization of dearness allowance.  Fifth Pay  

Commission  granted  the  same  in  1996.   Since  then,  public  

sector undertakings, banks and even the private sector are all  

granting  100%  neutralization  of  dearness  allowance.   The  

58

Page 59

reference to decisions prior to 1995 is irrelevant.

67) Lastly,  the  contention  of  the  petitioners  that  the  Wage  

Boards  have  not  taken  into  account  regional  variations  in  

submitting their recommendations is also not correct.  It is clear  

from the report that the Wage Boards have categorized the HRA  

and Transport Allowance into X, Y and Z category regions, which  

reflects  that  the  cost  on  accommodation  and  transport  in  

different regions in the country was considered.  Furthermore,  

there is gradation of variable pay and allowances according to  

the size of the establishments wherein smaller establishments  

are required to pay those at a lower rate compared to larger  

establishments.  Hence, we are satisfied that the Wage Boards  

followed  certain  well  laid  down  principles  and  norms  while  

making recommendations.

68) It is true that the Wage Boards have made some general  

suggestions for effective implementation of Wage Awards which  

is given separately in Chapter 21 of the Report of the Majithia  

Wage  Boards  of  Working  Journalists  and  Non-Journalists  

Newspaper and News Agency Employees.  It is brought to our  

notice  that  the  Government  has  not  accepted  all  these  

suggestions  including  those  pertaining  to  retirement  age,  

59

Page 60

pension,  paternity  leave,  etc.  as  these are  beyond the  main  

objective  for  which  the  Wage  Boards  were  constituted.  

Regarding fixation of pay, assured career development, there  

have been proposals in the recommendations which are in the  

manner  of  providing  higher  pay  scale  after  completion  of  

certain number of years which cannot be treated as time bound  

promotion.   Similarly,  the  establishments  have  also  been  

categorized  on  the  basis  of  their  turnover,  thus,  taking  into  

consideration the capacity of various establishments to pay.

69) It is useful to refer Section 12 of the Act which deals with  

the powers of Central Government to enforce recommendations  

of the Wage Board.  It reads as under:

“12  -  Powers  of  Central  Government  to  enforce  recommendations of the Wage Board

(1)  As  soon  as  may  be,  after  the  receipt  of  the  recommendations of the Board, the Central Government  shall make an order in terms of the recommendations or  subject to such modifications, if any, as it thinks fit, being  modifications  which,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Central  Government,  do  not  effect  important  alterations  in  the  character of the recommendations.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section  (1), the Central Government may, if it thinks fit,--

(a) make such modifications in the recommendations,  not being modifications of the nature referred to in sub- section (1), as it thinks fit:

Provided that before making any such modifications,  the Central Government shall cause notice to be given to  all persons likely to be affected thereby in such manner  as may be prescribed, and shall  take into account any  

60

Page 61

representations which they may make in this  behalf  in  writing; or

(b) refer the recommendations or any part thereof to  the Board, in which case, the Central Government shall  consider its further recommendations and make an order  either  in  terms  of  the  recommendations  or  with  such  modifications of the nature referred to in sub-section (1)  as it thinks fit.

(3)  Every  order  made  by  the  Central  Government  under  this  section  shall  be  published  in  the  Official  Gazette together with the recommendations of the Board  relating  to  the  order  and  the  order  shall  come  into  operation  on  the  date  of  publication  or  on  such  date,  whether  prospectively  or  retrospectively,  as  may  be  specified in the order.”

70)    Thus, it is the prerogative of the Central Government to  

accept  or  reject  the  recommendations  of  the  Wage  Boards.  

There is  no scope for hearing the parties once again by the  

Central  Government  while  accepting  or  modifying  the  

recommendations,  except  that  the  modifications  are  of  such  

nature which alter the character of the recommendations and  

such modification is likely to affect the parties.  The mere fact  

that in the present case, the Government has not accepted a  

few recommendations will not automatically affect the validity  

of the entire report.  Further, the Government has not accepted  

all those suggestions including those pertaining to retirement  

age, etc. as these are beyond the mandate for which the Wage  

Boards were constituted.   Regarding fixation of pay,  assured  

career  development,  there  have  been  proposals  in  the  

61

Page 62

recommendations which are in the manner of providing higher  

pay scale after  completion of certain number of years which  

cannot be treated as time bound promotion.

71) Accordingly,  we  hold  that  the  recommendations  of  the  

Wage Boards are valid in law, based on genuine and acceptable  

considerations  and  there  is  no  valid  ground  for  interference  

under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

72) Consequently, all the writ petitions are dismissed with no  

order as to costs.

73) In  view  of  our  conclusion  and  dismissal  of  all  the  writ  

petitions,  the  wages  as  revised/determined  shall  be  payable  

from 11.11.2011  when  the  Government  of  India  notified  the  

recommendations of the Majithia Wage Boards.  All the arrears  

up to March, 2014 shall be paid to all eligible persons in four  

equal instalments within a period of one year from today and  

continue to pay the revised wages from April, 2014 onwards.

74) In view of the disposal of the writ petitions, the contempt  

petition is closed.

  ……….…………………………CJI.              (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

62

Page 63

   ..…….……………………………J.                         (RANJAN GOGOI)  

        ……….……………………………J.            

           (SHIVA KIRTI SINGH)   

NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 07, 2014.

63