1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 411 OF 2014 IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.246 OF 2011 AVISHEK RAJA & ORS. ...PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS SANJAY GUPTA              ...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH  CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 33 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  572  OF  2014  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 34 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  571  OF  2014  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 38 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  46  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 50 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.264  OF  2012,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  158  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.510  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 174 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.510  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  101  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 103 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  104  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 105 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  106  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 107 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  109  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,

2

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 110 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  111  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 112 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  113  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 120 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  121  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 127 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  128  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 129 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  131  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 132 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  133  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 134 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  149  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 150 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  151  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 152 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  153  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 154 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  155  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 102 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  157  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.510  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 283 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  284  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 285 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  286  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 290 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL)

3

NO.  287  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 288 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  291  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 450 OF 2014 IN WP (C)  NO.264  OF  2012,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  385  OF  2014  IN  WP  (C)  NO.264  OF  2012, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 25425 OF 2015 IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 25424 OF 2015 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 25423 OF 2015 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 25427 OF 2015 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 25426 OF 2015 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 25583 OF 2015 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 21713 OF 2015 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 25577 OF 2015 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 12967 OF 2015 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 25581 OF 2015 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 23904 OF 2015 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 25578 OF 2015 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 25579 OF 2015 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 25431 OF 2015 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 25432 OF 2015 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 26077 OF 2015 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 26256 OF 2015 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 26078 OF 2015 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 25430 OF 2015 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 8429 OF 2016 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 20025 OF 2016 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 23037 OF 2016 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 18567 OF

4

2016 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 27528 OF 2016 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 33442 OF 2016 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 33441 OF 2016 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 36110 OF 2016 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 36227 OF 2016 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 36810 OF 2016 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 40055 OF 2016 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 972 OF 2017 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 11857 OF 2017 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 6277 OF 2017 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 13520 OF 2017 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, WP (C) NO.998 OF 2016, WP (C) NO.148 OF 2017 & WP (C) NO.299 OF 2017

J U D G M E N T

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. The Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter for short ‘the Act’) was enacted to regulate the conditions of service of working journalists and  other  persons  employed  in  newspaper  establishments throughout the country.  The Act is a comprehensive piece of legislation dealing with,  inter alia, entitlement to gratuity, hours of work, leave as well as fixation of

5

wages  payable  both  to  the  working  journalists  and non-journalist newspaper employees, as may be.  So far as fixation and revision of wages is concerned, Section 9 of the Act has left such fixation or revision of wages in respect of working journalists to be dealt with by a Wage Board constituted thereunder.  The recommendations of the Wage  Board,  if  accepted,  are  to  be  notified  by  the Central Government under Section 12 of the Act.  Section 13 of the Act provides that upon coming into operation of the  Order  of  the  Central  Government  under  Section  12 every  working  journalist  will  be  entitled  to  be  paid wages at the rate not less than what is specified in the Order.   Chapter  IIA  of  the  Act  contains  pari  materia provisions  with  regard  to  non-journalist  employees  of newspaper establishments.   

2. Section 16 of the Act provides that the provisions thereof  “shall  have  effect  notwithstanding  anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law or in

the terms of any award, agreement or contract of service,

whether made before or after the commencement of this

6

Act.”  The proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 16 and Sub-section (2) would require a specific notice and are, therefore, being extracted below.

Proviso to Sub-Section (1) Section 16 “Provided  that  where  under  any  such  award, agreement,  contract  of  service  or  otherwise,  a newspaper  employee  is  entitled  to  benefits  in respect of any matter which are more favourable to him than those to which he would be entitled under this Act, the newspaper employee shall continue to be  entitled  to  the  more  favourable  benefits  in respect  of  that  matter,  notwithstanding  that  he receives benefits in respect of other matters under this Act.

Sub-Section 2 of Section 16 (2) Nothing  contained  in  this  Act  shall  be construed to preclude any newspaper employee from entering  into  an  agreement  with  an  employer  for granting him rights or privileges in respect of any matter which are more favourable to him than those to which he would be entitled under this Act.”  

    3. Section 16A imposes an embargo on the employer for discharging or dismissing any employee “by reason of his liability for payment of wages to newspaper employees at

the rates specified in an order of the Central Government

under section 12, or under section 12 read with section

13AA or section 13DD”.

4. Section 17 of the Act deals with recovery of money due  from  an  employer.  As  a  core  issue  on  the

7

maintainability  of  the  present  contempt  cases  centers around the remedy provided for by the aforesaid provision of  the  Act,  Section  17  of  the  Act  may  be  set  out hereunder.

“17.(1) Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper  employee  from  an  employer,  the newspaper  employee  himself,  or  any  person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any  member  of  his  family  may,  without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State  Government,  or  such  authority,  as  the State Government may specify in this behalf, is  satisfied  that  any  amount  is  so  due,  it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector, and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.  

(2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own  motion  or  upon  application  made  to  it, refer  the  question  to  any  Labour  Court constituted  by  it  under  the  Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), or under any corresponding  law  relating  to  investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if  the  question  so  referred  were  a  matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act or law,  

(3)  The  decision  of  the  Labour  Court  shall  be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the  Labour  Court  may  be  recovered  in  the manner provided in sub-section (1).

8

5. Section 17B of the Act provides for appointment of Inspectors  to  ensure  compliance  with  the  various provisions of the Act.

6. The  Central  Government  in  exercise  of  its  powers under Sections 9 and 13C had constituted two Wage Boards on 24.05.2007 under the Chairmanship of one Dr. Justice Narayana Kurup (retired Acting Chief Justice of the High Court of Madras) to determine the wages to be paid to working  journalists  and  non-journalist  employees.   As Justice  Kurup  resigned  from  the  post  of  Chairman  on 31.7.2008, Justice G.R. Majithia (retired Judge of the Bombay High Court) was appointed as Chairman of the two Wage Boards on 04.03.2009.  The Wage Boards headed by Justice  Majithia  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the “Majithia Wage Board”) submitted its recommendations to the  Central  Government  on  31.12.2010.   The  same  were accepted by the Central Government on 25.10.2011 and a Notification to the said effect, under Section 12 of the Act, was published on 11.11.2011.

7. Even before the Government Notification under Section

9

12  of  the  Act  was  published  on  11.11.2011  various newspaper  establishments  affected  by  the  Majithia  Wage Board  Award  had  challenged  the  recommendations  of  the Wage Board by filing writ petitions before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the lead case being Writ Petition (C) No. 246 of 2011.  During the pendency  of  the  writ  petitions  the  Notification  dated 11.11.2011 under Section 12 of the Act came to be issued which was brought under challenge by amendments to the writ petitions.   

8. The challenge in the aforesaid writ petitions, inter alia, was  on  the  basis  that  the  Act  including  the amendment  thereto  made  in  the  year  1974  was constitutionally  invalid  and  further  that  the constitution  of  the  Wage  Boards  was  contrary  to  the statutory provisions contained in the Act. The procedure adopted by the Wage Boards in determining the wages of working journalists as well as non-journalist employees was erroneous and faulty requiring interference of the Court.

10

9. The  aforesaid  Writ  petitions  challenging  the  Wage Board recommendations as well as the Notification dated 11.11.2011  accepting  the  said  recommendations  were negatived by this Court by its judgment and order dated 07.02.2014.   It  will  be  necessary  at  this  stage  to summarize the following conclusions of the Court in its judgment  dated  07.02.2014  while  dismissing  the  writ petitions in question.

“(i) After having exhaustively gone through the record of proceedings and various written communications, we are fully satisfied that the Majithia Wage Board 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.

(ii)  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.

(iii) 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

11

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.

(iv) 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.  Consequently,  all  the  writ  petitions  are dismissed.

(v)  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 has 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  installments  within  a period of one year from today and continue to pay the revised wages from April, 2014.” (Underlining is ours)

10. A  look  at  the  Majithia  Wage  Board  Award  would indicate  that  the  Wage  Board  had  classified  newspaper establishments  in  different  categories  based  on  the average  gross  revenue  of  the  establishments  for  the preceding three accounting years, i.e., 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10.  Eight categories of newspaper establishments, based on the average gross revenue, were worked out and the working as well as non-working journalist employees were  classified  into  different  categories.   The

12

recommendations  were  not  only  with  regard  to  revised scale of wages and “variable pay” but also in respect of revised  rates  of  dearness  allowance,  house  rent allowance,  transport  allowance,  hill  area  allowance (hardship allowance) etc.  

11. At this stage Clause 20(j) of the Majithia Wage Board Award, which is one of the core areas of controversy in the present proceedings, may be specifically noticed.

“20(j)  The  revised  pay  scales  shall  become applicable to all employees with effect from the 1st of July, 2010. However, if an employee within three weeks  from  the  date  of  publication  of  the Government Notification under Section 12 of the Act enforcing  these  recommendations  exercises  his option  for  retaining  his  existing  pay  scale  and ‘existing  emoluments’,  he  shall  be  entitled  to retain his existing scale and such emoluments."

12. The  Majithia  Wage  Board  Award  also  specified  that establishments  which  suffered  heavy  cash  losses consequently in three preceding accounting years shall be exempt  from  payment  of  arrears,  which  is  clear  from Clause 21 of the Award extracted below.

“21.  The  arrears  payable  from  the  date  of enforcement of the Award, if any, as a result of retrospective  implementation,  shall  be  paid  in three  equal  installments  after  every  six  months from the date of enforcement of the Award and the first  installment  shall  be  paid  within  three

13

months;

Provided  that  the  newspaper  establishments,  who suffered  heavy  cash  losses  consequently  in  three accounting  years  preceding  the  date  of implementation of the Awards, shall be exempt from payment  of  any  arrears.  However,  these  newspaper establishments would be required to fix salaries or wages of their employees on notional basis in the revised scales of pay with effect from the date of implementation of the Awards, i.e., the 1st  July, 2010.”

13. Alleging that wages and allowances as per the Award of the Majithia Wage Board, duly approved and notified by the Central Government, have not been paid, the present contempt  petitions  (numbering  83)  have  been  filed.   

Three(3)  writ  petitions  under  Article  32  of  the Constitution, i.e., Writ Petition Nos. 998 of 2016, 148 of 2017 and 299 of 2017 have also been filed alleging arbitrary  transfer  and  termination/retrenchment  of  the concerned journalists and employees, who claim to have demanded due implementation of the Majithia Wage Board Award.  The above is the subject matter of consideration in the present group of cases.

14. Considering the issues involved and the large number of  contempt  petitions  that  had  been  brought  to  this

14

Court,  different  orders  have  been  pronounced  by  this Court  from  time  to  time  to  effectively  resolve  the issues.  Orders dated 28.4.2015, 14.3.2016 and 8.11.2016 which are extracted below would require a specific notice and mention.

Order dated 28  th   of April, 2015: “All  the  State  Governments  acting  through  their respective  Chief  Secretaries  shall,  within  four weeks from today, appoint Inspectors under Section 17-B of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 to determine as to whether the dues and entitlements of all categories of Newspaper Employees, including Journalists under the Majithia Wage Board Award, has been implemented in accordance with the terms thereof. The inspectors appointed by the State Government will naturally exercise their powers as provided under the Act and shall submit their  report  to  this  Court  through  the  Labour Commissioners of each State indicating the precise findings on the issue indicated above.” (Emphasis is supplied by us)

Order dated 14  th   of March, 2016: “  We  have  also  taken  note  of  the  various interlocutory  applications  that  have  been  filed alleging  wrongful  termination  of  services  and fraudulent surrender of the rights under the Wage Board recommendations to avoid liabilities in terms of  the  order  of  the  Court.  As  such  complaints received till date is substantial in number, this Court is not in a position to individually examine each  case.  We,  therefore,  direct  the  Labour Commissioner of each of the States to look into all such  grievances  and  on  determination  of  the  same file necessary reports before the Court which will also be so filed on or before 12  th   July, 2016. We grant liberty to each of the individual employees who have filed the interlocutory applications and

15

also such employees who are yet to approach this Court but have a grievance of the kind indicated above to move the Labour Commissioner of the State concerned in terms of the present order.” (Emphasis is supplied by us)

Order dated 08  th   of November, 2016:

“For reasons we do not consider necessary at present to  record  the  exercise  of  monitoring  the implementation  of  the  Majithia  Wage  Board Recommendations on the basis of the reports called for  from  the  Labour  Commissioners  of  different States stand deferred to a later date. Instead,  it would be prudent and in fact necessary to decide certain questions of law which now stand formulated and have been submitted to the Court by Shri Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel, at the request of the Court.

Once the legal formulations are considered and decided, further orders with regard to the mechanism to implement the Majithia Wage Board Recommendations will follow.”  (Emphasis is supplied by us)

15. On the basis of the aforesaid orders of the Court, several  reports  have  been  submitted  by  the  Labour Commissioners of different States indicating the position with regard to the implementation of the Majithia Wage Board Award.  The said Reports indicate that in some of the  States,  some  establishments  have  implemented  the Award in full, whereas others have so implemented the same partially. In some cases no progress in the matter

16

of implementation has been made at all.  The reasons for non-implementation  of  the  award  or  partial implementation, as may be, as evident from the reports of the  Labour  Commissioners  can  be  identified  to  be four-fold which are indicated below.

(1) As reported by the Labour Commissioners in some of the  establishments,  as  per  Clause  20(j)  of  the Majithia  Award  many  employees  have  agreed  to  be governed by the wage structure which had existed before the Majithia Wage Board recommendations were accepted and notified by the Central Government. The issue of authenticity and the voluntariness of such  undertakings,  allegedly  submitted  by  the employees, is also highlighted in the reports of the Labour Commissioner indicating that the same are  being  subjected  to  the  adjudicatory  process under the provisions of Section 17 (quoted above) of the Act.

(2) The  terms  of  the  Majithia  Wage  Board  Award  are required  to  be  implemented  by  the  newspaper establishments only for regular employees and not

17

for contractual employees. (3) The element of “variable pay” recommended by the

Majithia  Wage  Board  and  accepted  by  the  Central Government  are  not  required  to  be  taken  into account  for  the  purpose  of  calculating  other allowances like Dearness Allowance etc.

(4) As  per  the  reports  of  the  Labour  Commissioners submitted to this Court a large number of newspaper establishments  have  expressed  their  inability  to pay  the  arrears  in  view  of  serious  financial constraints.

16. The petitioners contend that the working journalists as well as the non-journalist employees are entitled to receive their wages as per the Majithia Wage Board Award once the recommendations have been accepted and notified by the Central Government under Section 12 of the Act. This, according to the contempt petitioners, flows from the provisions of Section 13 read with Section 16 of the Act  under  which  provisions,  the  Wage  Board recommendations,  on  being  notified  by  the  Central

18

Government under Section 12 of the Act, supersedes all existing  arrangements  including  specific  contractual arrangements governing conditions of service of working and non-journalist employees.  The wages recommended by the Wage Board, as approved and accepted by the Central Government, is guaranteed by the Act to the concerned working and non-journalist employees.  The wages notified can  be  departed  only  to  adopt  more  beneficial  and favourable rates.  It is, therefore, the contention of the  contempt  petitioners  that  any  agreement  or undertaking  to  be  governed  by  the  previous  wage structure, which is less favourable than what has been recommended by the Majithia Wage Board, is  non est in law.  That apart, contentions had been raised that none of  the  said  undertakings  are  voluntary  and  have  been obtained  under  duress  and  under  threat  of transfer/termination.   The  contempt  petitioners, therefore, urge that the Majithia Wage Board Award to the above extent may be clarified by this Court.

17. Insofar as variable pay, contractual employees, and

19

financial capacity is concerned, it is the case of the contempt petitioners that all the above matters have been exhaustively dealt with by the Majithia Wage Board. The recommendations  thereof  having  been  accepted  by  the Central  Government  there  is  no  scope  for  any  further debate or controversy on the said score.  The Wage Board recommendations, as approved and notified, would apply to all  categories  of  employees,  including  contractual employees, who would also be entitled to variable pay and computation of all allowances by inclusion of variable pay. All employers are also obliged to pay the arrears from  the  stipulated  date  unless  an  establishment  has suffered  “heavy  cash  losses”  in  the  three  preceding accounting years preceding the date of implementation of the  Award  which  is  to  be  distinguished  from  mere financial  difficulties,  as  may  be  projected  by  an employer.

18. Opposing the contempt petitions and on behalf of the newspaper establishments it is contended that the four issues,  urged  on  behalf  of  the  contempt  petitioners,

20

identified above, have not been, in any manner, dealt with in the main judgment dated 07.02.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 246 of 2011. It is, therefore, submitted that  in  the  exercise  of  contempt  jurisdiction,  the judgment  dated  07.02.2014  passed  in  the  main  writ petition cannot be amplified, clarified or “added to” so as to bring the alleged non-compliance within the four corners of limited contempt jurisdiction.  As the four issues, crystallized above, does not form part of the judgment dated 07.02.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 246 of 2011, it cannot be urged that any of the newspaper establishments are guilty of commission of contempt for allegedly  violating  or  flouting  the  said terms/requirements which are now sought to be attributed to be a part of the Majithia Wage Board Award and hence contended to be a part of the judgment dated 07.02.2014 passed in Writ Petition NO. 246 of 2011 in respect of which disobedience is alleged.

19. The contours of power of the Court so far as commission  of  civil  contempt  is  concerned  have  been

21

elaborated upon in a number of pronouncements of this Court.  Illustratively,  reference  may  be  made  to  the following observations in the case of Kapildeo Prasad Sah vs. State of Bihar1.

“For  holding  the  respondents  to  have  committed contempt, civil contempt at that, it has to be shown that  there  has  been   wilful  disobedience  of  the judgment or order of the Court. Power to punish for contempt is to be resorted to when there is clear violation  of  the  Court’s  order.  Since  notice  of contempt  and  punishment  for  contempt  is  of  far reaching  consequence  and  these  powers  should  be invoked  only  when  a  clear  case  of  wilful disobedience  of  the  court’s  order  has  been  made out.Whether disobedience is wilful in a particular case depends on the facts and circumstances of that case. Judicial orders are to be properly understood and complied with. Even negligence and carelessness can  amount  to  disobedience  particularly  when  the attention  of  the  person  is  drawn  to  the  Court’s orders and its implication.

…… …… …… …… …… …… …… ……

Jurisdiction  to  punish  for  contempt  exists  to provide  ultimate  sanction  against  the  person  who refuses to comply with the order of the court or disregards the order continuously. …… …… …… …… …… …… …… ……

No person can defy the Court’s order. Wilful would exclude  casual,  accidental,  bona  fide  or unintentional acts or genuine inability to comply with  the  terms  of  the  order.  A  petitioner  who complains  breach  of  Court’s  order  must  allege deliberate  or  contumacious  disobedience  of  the Court’s order.”

    (Emphasis is supplied by us)

20. Similar is the view expressed by this Court in 1  (1999) 7 SCC 569

22

Ashok Paper Kamgar Union vs.  Dharam Godha  2,  Anil Kumar Shahi vs.  Professor Ram Sevak Yadav  3,  Jhareswar Prasad Paul vs. Tarak Nath Ganguly  4, Union of India vs. Subedar Devassy  PV5,  Bihar  Finance  Service  House  Construction Co-operative Society Ltd. vs. Gautam Goswami6 and Chhotu Ram  vs. Urvashi Gulati7.  In view of the consistency in the opinions rendered therein, it will not be necessary to burden this order by any detailed reference to what has been held in the above cases except to reiterate that the standard of proof required to hold a person guilty of contempt would be the same as in a criminal proceeding and  the  breach  alleged  shall  have  to  be  established beyond  all  reasonable  doubt  [Chhotu  Ram vs.  Urvashi Gulati (supra)]. More recent in point of time is the view expressed by this Court in  Noor Saba vs.  Anoop Mishra  8

wherein the scope of the contempt power in case of a breach  of  a  Court’s  order  has  been  dealt  with  in paragraph 14 of the report in the following manner -   

2  (2003) 11 SCC, 1 3  (2008) 14 SCC 115 4  (2002) 5 SCC 352 5  (2006) 1 SCC 613 6  (2008) 5 SCC 339 7  (2001) 7 SCC 530 8  (2013) 10 SCC 248

23

“To hold the respondents or anyone of them liable for  contempt  this  Court  has  to  arrive  at  a conclusion  that  the  respondents  have  wilfully disobeyed the order of the Court.  The exercise of contempt jurisdiction is summary in nature and an adjudication  of  the  liability  of  the  alleged contemnor for wilful disobedience of the Court is normally made on admitted and undisputed facts. In the present case not only there has been a shift in the stand of the petitioner with regard to the basic facts  on  which  commission  of  contempt  has  been alleged  even  the  said  new/altered  facts  do  not permit  an  adjudication  in  consonance  with  the established  principles  of  exercise  of  contempt jurisdiction so as to enable the Court to come to a conclusion that any of the respondents have wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court ….” (Emphasis is supplied by us)

21. Similarly, in Sudhir Vasudeva vs. George Ravishekaran9

the issue has been dealt with in a manner which may be of relevance to the present case. Para 19 of the report is as follows.

“The power vested in the High Courts as well as this Court to punish for contempt is a special and rare power available both under the Constitution as well as  the  Contempt  of  Courts  Act  of  1971.  It  is  a drastic power which, if misdirected, could even curb the  liberty  of  the  individual  charged  with commission of contempt. The very nature of the power casts a sacred duty in the Courts to exercise the same with the greatest of care and caution. This is also necessary as, more often than not, adjudication of  a  contempt  plea  involves  a  process  of self-determination of the sweep, meaning and effect of the order in respect of which disobedience is alleged.  The  Courts  must  not,  therefore,  travel beyond  the  four  corners  of  the  order  which  is

9  (2014) 3 SCC 373

24

alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that  have  not  been  dealt  with  or  decided  in  the judgment or the order violation of which is alleged. Only  such  directions  which  are  explicit  in  a judgment or order or are plainly self-evident ought to  be  taken  into  account  for  the  purpose  of consideration  as  to  whether  there  has  been  any disobedience  or  wilful  violation  of  the  same. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor can the plea of  equities  be  considered.  The  Courts  must  also ensure that while considering a contempt plea the power  available  to  the  Court  in  other  corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal is not trenched upon. No order or direction supplemental to what has been already expressed should be issued by the Court while exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law; such an exercise is more appropriate in  other  jurisdictions  vested  in  the  Court,  as noticed above.” (Emphasis is supplied by us)

22. From  the  stand  adopted  by  the  newspaper establishments in the various counter affidavits filed; from the statements made in the reports submitted by the Labour  Commissioners  of  different  States  from  time  to time; and also from the written arguments filed and the oral  submissions  advanced  it  is  clear  that  part implementation/non-implementation  of  the  Majithia  Wage Board Award by the concerned newspaper establishments is on account of what the said establishments have perceived to be the scope and ambit of the Majthia Wage Board Award as approved and notified by the Central Government, the

25

challenge to which has been dismissed by this Court by judgment dated 07.02.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 246 of  2011.   The  stand  taken  for  what  is  alleged  to  be non-implementation  or  partial  implementation  of  the Award,  as  may  be,  having  clearly  stemmed  from  the understanding  of  the  Award  of  the  concerned  newspaper establishments  in  a  particular  manner,  it  is  our considered view that the said establishments cannot be held  to  have  wilfully  disobeyed  the  judgment  of  this Court dated 07.02.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 246 of 2011. At best, the default alleged has taken place on account of a wrong understanding of the Award as upheld by this Court.  This would not amount to wilful default so  as  to  attract  the  liability  of  civil  contempt  as defined under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.  The default alleged though is unmistakably evident to  us,  in  the  absence  of  any  wilful  or  deliberate intention  to  commit  the  same  cannot  make  any  of  the newspaper  establishments  liable  for  contempt.   On  the other hand, they are entitled to one more opportunity to implement the Award in its proper spirit and effect in

26

the light of what we now propose to say.

23. The Majithia Wage Board Award has been approved by this Court by its judgment dated 07.02.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 246 of 2011.  The Award, therefore, has to be implemented in full.  While it is correct that issues concerning,      (i) Clause 20(j); (ii) whether the award applies to contractual employees; (iii) whether it includes variable pay and (iv) the extent of financial erosion  that  would  justify  withholding  of  payment  of arrears has not been specifically dealt with either in the Award or in the judgment of this Court,  there can be no manner of doubt that a reiteration of the scope and ambit  of  the  terms  of  the  Award  would  necessarily  be called for and justified.  This is what we propose to do hereinafter so as to ensure due and full compliance with the order(s) of the Court.   

24. Insofar  as  the  highly  contentious  issue  of  Clause 20(j) of the Award read with the provisions of the Act is concerned it is clear that what the Act guarantees to

27

each “newspaper employee” as defined in Section 2(c) of the  Act  is  the  entitlement  to  receive  wages  as recommended by the Wage Board and approved and notified by the Central Government under Section 12 of the Act. The  wages  notified  supersedes  all  existing  contracts governing  wages  as  may  be  in  force.   However,  the Legislature  has  made  it  clear  by  incorporating  the provisions of Section 16 that, notwithstanding the wages as may be fixed and notified, it will always be open to the  concerned  employee  to  agree  to  and  accept  any benefits which is more favourable to him than what has been notified under Section 12 of the Act.  Clause 20(j) of the Majithia Wage Board Award will, therefore, have to be read and understood in the above light.  The Act is silent on the availability of an option to receive less than what is due to an employee under the Act.  Such an option  really  lies  in  the  domain  of  the  doctrine  of waiver, an issue that does not arise in the present case in view of the specific stand of the concerned employees in the present case with regard to the involuntary nature of the undertakings allegedly furnished by them.  The

28

dispute that arises, therefore, has to be resolved by the fact finding authority under Section 17 of the Act, as adverted to hereinafter.   

25. In  any  event  having  regard  to  the  Legislative history  and  the  purpose  sought  to  be  achieved  by enactment of the Act i.e. to provide the minimum if not a fair  wage  to  Newspaper  employees,  the  ratio  of  the pronouncement in  Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd. and Ors.  vs. State of Ajmer10, holding wages notified under the Minimum Wages  Act,  1948  to  be  non-negotiable  would  squarely govern the wages notified under the present Act. Para 4 of the report in  Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd. (supra) which deals with the above issue is extracted hereinbelow for specific notice.

“4. It can scarcely be disputed that securing of living wages to labourers which ensure not only  bare  physical  subsistence  but  also  the maintenance of health and decency, is conducive to the general interest of the public. This is one of the Directive Principles of State Policy embodied in Article 43 of our Constitution. It is well known that in 1928 there was a Minimum Wages  Fixing  Machinery  Convention  held  at Geneva  and  the  resolutions  passed  in  that convention were embodied in the International Labour Code. The Minimum Wages Act is said to

10  AIR 1955 SC 33

29

have been passed with a view to give effect to these  resolutions.  Vide  –South  India  Estate Labour  Relations  Organisation  vs.   State  of Madras11.  

If the labourers are to be secured in the enjoyment of minimum wages and they are to be protected  against  exploitation  by  their employers,  it  is  absolutely  necessary  that restraints should be imposed upon their freedom of contract and such restrictions cannot in any sense be said to be unreasonable. On the other hand, the employers cannot be heard to complain if they are compelled to pay minimum wages to their labourers even though the labourers, on account of their poverty and helplessness are willing to work on lesser wages.” (Emphasis is ours)

26. There is nothing either in the provisions of the Act or  in  the  terms  of  the  Wage  Board  Award  which  would enable us to hold that the benefits of the Award would be restricted to the regular employees and not contractual employees.  In this regard we have taken note of the definition of “newspaper employees”, “Working Journalist” and  “Non-Journalist  newspaper  employees”  as  defined  in Section 2(c), 2(f) and 2(dd) of the Act.  Insofar as “variable  pay”  is  concerned,  as  already  noticed  and extracted in paragraph 7 above, this Court while dealing with the concept of variable pay has taken the view that the said relief has been incorporated in the Majithia

11  AIR 1955 Mad 45 at p.47

30

Wage  Board  Award  in  order  to  give  fair  and  equitable treatment  to  employees  of  newspapers.   Therefore,  no question of withholding the said benefit by taking any other view with regard to “variable pay” can arise. In fact, a reading of the relevant part of the Award would go to show that the concept of “variable pay” which was introduced in the Award stems from grade pay contained in the Report of the 6th Pay Commission and was intended to bring the working journalist and non-journalist employees covered by the Act at par with the Central Government employees to the extent possible.  So far as the concept of heavy cash losses is concerned, we are of the view that the very expression itself indicates that the same is different from mere financial difficulties and such losses apart from the extent of being crippling in nature must be consistent over the period of time stipulated in the Award.  This is a question of fact that has to be determined from case to case.   

27. Having clarified all doubts and ambiguities in the matter  and  upon  holding  that  none  of  the  newspaper

31

establishments should, in the facts of the cases before us, be held guilty of commission of contempt, we direct that  henceforth  all  complaints  with  regard  to non-implementation of the Majithia Wage Board Award or otherwise  be  dealt  with  in  terms  of  the  mechanism provided under Section 17 of the Act.  It would be more appropriate to resolve such complaints and grievances by resort to the enforcement and remedial machinery provided under the Act rather than by any future approaches to the Courts in exercise of the contempt jurisdiction of the Courts or otherwise.   

28. Insofar as the writ petitions seeking interference with  transfer/termination,  as  the  case  may  be,  are concerned,  it  appears  that  the  same  are  relatable  to service  conditions  of  the  concerned  writ  petitioners. Adjudication of such question in the exercise of high prerogative writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution would not only be unjustified but such questions should be left for determination before the appropriate authority either under the Act or under

32

cognate provisions of law (Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 etc.), as the case may be.   

29. In the light of the above, all the contempt petitions as well as the writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution shall stand answered and disposed of in the terms hereinabove.

....................,J.     (RANJAN GOGOI)

....................,J.     (NAVIN SINHA)

NEW DELHI JUNE 19, 2017.

1

ITEM NO.2 & 2.1 to 2.85       COURT NO.2         SECTION X                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 411 OF 2014 IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.246 OF 2011 AVISHEK RAJA & ORS. ...PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS SANJAY GUPTA              ...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH  CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 33 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  572  OF  2014  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 34 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  571  OF  2014  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 38 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  46  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 50 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.264  OF  2012,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  158  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.510  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 174 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.510  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  101  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 103 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  104  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 105 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  106  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 107 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  109  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 110 OF 2015 IN WP

2

(C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  111  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 112 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  113  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 120 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  121  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 127 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  128  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 129 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  131  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 132 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  133  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 134 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  149  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 150 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  151  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 152 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  153  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 154 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  155  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 102 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  157  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.510  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 283 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  284  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 285 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  286  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 290 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  287  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,

3

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 288 OF 2015 IN WP (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  291  OF  2015  IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 450 OF 2014 IN WP (C)  NO.264  OF  2012,  CONTEMPT  PETITION  (CIVIL) NO.  385  OF  2014  IN  WP  (C)  NO.264  OF  2012, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 25425 OF 2015 IN  WP  (C)  NO.246  OF  2011,  CONTEMPT  PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 25424 OF 2015 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 25423 OF 2015 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 25427 OF 2015 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 25426 OF 2015 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 25583 OF 2015 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 21713 OF 2015 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 25577 OF 2015 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 12967 OF 2015 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 25581 OF 2015 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 23904 OF 2015 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 25578 OF 2015 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 25579 OF 2015 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 25431 OF 2015 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 25432 OF 2015 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 26077 OF 2015 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 26256 OF 2015 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 26078 OF 2015 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 25430 OF 2015 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 8429 OF 2016 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 20025 OF 2016 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 23037 OF 2016 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 18567 OF 2016 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION

4

(CIVIL) D. NO. 27528 OF 2016 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 33442 OF 2016 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 33441 OF 2016 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 36110 OF 2016 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 36227 OF 2016 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 36810 OF 2016 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 40055 OF 2016 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 972 OF 2017 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 11857 OF 2017 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 6277 OF 2017 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 13520 OF 2017 IN WP (C) NO.246 OF 2011, WP (C) NO.998 OF 2016, WP (C) NO.148 OF 2017 & WP (C) NO.299 OF 2017

Date : 19/06/2017 These cases were called on for pronouncement of  judgment today.

For parties (s) Mr. Parmanand Pandey, AOR Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, AOR Mr. Nitin Kumar Thakur, AOR Mr. Kunal Verma, AOR Mr. Satya Mitra, AOR M/s. M. Rambabu & Co., AOR Mr. Prashant Katara, Adv. Ms. Parul Sharma, Adv.  Mr. Neeraj Dubey, Adv. Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, AOR.

5

Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, AOR Mr. H. K. Chaturvedi, AOR Mr. Rajan K. Chourasia, AOR Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR Mr. Umesh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR. Mr. Subhash Chandran K.R., Adv. Mr. Raj Singh Rana, AOR Mr. V.M. Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Shringarika Priyadarshini, Adv. Mr. P. N. Puri, AOR. Mr. Rakesh Mishra, AOR Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR Mr. Balraj Dewan, AOR Mr. P. George Giri, AOR Mr. Narender Kumar Verma, AOR Mr. Rameshwar Prasad  Goyal, AOR Mr. A. Raghunath, AOR Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR

State of Manipur Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Birendra Kumar Mishra, AOR Ms. Poonam Atey, Adv.  Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv.

State of Chhattisgarh Mr. C.D. Singh, AAG Mr. Prateek Rusia, Adv.

6

Mr. Birendra Kumar Mishra, AOR Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Mr. Nitin Kumar Thakur, AOR

State of Bihar Mr. Gautam Singh, Adv. Mr. Rudreshwar Singh, Adv. Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR.

State of Nagaland Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Mr. Edward Belho, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. K. Luikang Michael, Adv. Ms. Elix Gangmei, Adv. Mr. Manish Sharma, Adv. Mr. mohammed Raiz, Adv. for M/s. Karanjawala & Co., AOR. Mr. Ajay Choudhary, AOR Mr. Jayant Kumar Mehta, AOR Ms. Pragya Baghel, AOR Mr. Anil Shrivastav, AOR Mr. Mohan Lal Sharma, AOR Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, AOR Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Vijay K. Jain, AOR

State of Telangana Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv. Mr. Mrityunjai Singh, Adv. Mr. Shantanu Sagar, AOR

State of Jharkhand Mr. Tapesh K. Singh, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Waquas, Adv. Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Adv.

7

State of Rajasthan Mr. S.S. Shamshery, AAG, Rajasthan Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, AOR.

Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  Ranjan  Gogoi  pronounced  the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha.

The  contempt  petitions  and  writ  petitions  are disposed of in terms of the signed reportable judgment.  

[VINOD LAKHINA] A.R.-cum-P.S.

[ASHA SONI] COURT MASTER

[SIGNED REPORTABLE JUDGMENT IS PLACED ON THE FILE]