STATESMAN LTD Vs. NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application for appropriate writs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner is challenging an order dated November 1, 1974, passed by E.K. Moidu J., the Presiding Officer of the National Tribunal at Calcutta (being the Respondent No. 1 herein) refusing to entertain an application under Rule 28 of The Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, the refusal of the Government of India, as communicated by the letter dated September 22, 1973, to constitute a National Tribunal under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to hear such application and also an order of reference dated April 4, 1974, whereby the Government of West Bengal had referred certain matters to the Second Labour Court of West Bengal for adjudication.

(2.) The facts of this case, so far as relevant for the purpose of this case, are set out hereinbelow:

(3.) According to the Petitioner, the said recommendations of the Journalists Wage Board had no application to process artists who are not artists within the meaning of the said recommendations, nor working journalists nor journalists at all. It is further alleged that the Respondents Nos. 8 to 12 did not make any claim to be entitled to wages under the said recommendations until the end of 1971 and they did not exercise any option under para. 4.32(6) within the time fixed therein or at all. Thereafter, the Non-Journalists Wage Board made its recommendations and submitted its report which was accepted by the Central Government on November 18, 1967. This is denied and disputed by these Respondents. It is alleged by the Petitioner that after the publication of the recommendations of the Non-Journalists Wage Board, disputes arose between the Petitioner and other newspaper establishments and their respective employees with regard to the implementation thereof. It was further alleged by the Petitioner that there was a threat of strike to be announced on April 23, 1968. It is alleged by the Petitioner that the Petitioner averted this strike in its own establishment at Calcutta by agreeing to certain terms in oral negotiations with the relevant Union of its employees. It is further alleged that thereafter by an agreement signed on April 23, 1968, by the President of the Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society as representing the employers and the President and General Secretary of the All India Newspaper Employees' Federation as representing the employees, the strike in other establishments was called off upon certain terms. Thereafter, two letters, one on May 13 and the other on June 21, 1968, were written on behalf of the artists to the Petitioner which I shall refer to later. By an order dated September 17, 1968, the Central Government, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 7B and Sub-section (1A) of Section 10 of the 1947 Act, constituted a National Tribunal at Calcutta of which Banerjee J. was made the Presiding Officer and certain disputes specified therein were referred to the said National Tribunal for adjudication. A good deal of argument has been advanced regarding the scope of the said order and accordingly, I think it proper that the same should be set out herein: