INDIAN EXPRESS LIMITED Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 21.10.2013 passed by learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order rejecting its application for quashing the impugned reference order issued in IDR No.185 of 2006 has been dismissed.

(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. Respondent No.3 is the Union of workmen employed at the industrial establishment of the appellant company which was earlier situated at Chandigarh and is now established at Panchkula. Earlier the printing and publication business of the appellant company was organised in the name and style of Indian Express Newspapers (Mumbai) Limited. Subsequent to the order dated 25.7.2008 passed in Company Petition Nos.548 and 549 of 2008 by the High Court of Bombay, the said company was demerged and the business of printing and publication of newspapers and periodicals stood vested in the appellant company in the name and style of the Indian Express Limited. It is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered office at Express Towers, Nariman Point, Mumbai. According to the appellant, the newspaper industry is governed by several enactments like the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (in short, "the Working Journalists Act"). As per the scheme of the Working Journalists Act, it was felt that the Working Journalists being a class apart required statutory protection in terms of their conditions of service including the fixation of their wages. For this purpose, the said Act provided for the Central Government to appoint a Wage Board to recommend the fixation of wages of Working Journalists. Subsequently, by way of an Amending Act in 1974, a separate Chapter was incorporated in the Working Journalists Act which provided for fixation of wages by a Wage Board even for the purpose of those workmen employed in a newspaper establishment who were not Working Journalists. The Wage Boards constituted by the Central Government made their recommendations. The said recommendations were duly considered by the Central Government. The notification dated 2.9.1994, Annexure P.2 issued by the Central Government became the subject matter of challenge before various High Courts on the ground that the procedure established by law was not followed prior to the promulgation of the notification. In the meantime, respondent No.3 raised a demand notice dated 15.10.2001, Annexure P.6 upon the appellant management seeking implementation of the Manisana Wage Board Award. The Delhi workmen of the appellant company also raised similar demand which was referred for adjudication by the Delhi Government to the Industrial Tribunal Delhi. At that stage, the appellant company moved an application before the Industrial Tribunal Chandigarh stating that as there was multiplicity of litigation connected to the same issue viz. as to whether arrears of wages were payable or not as the Delhi Industrial Tribunal was seized of the matter even prior to the matter being seized by the Chandigarh Industrial Tribunal, and prayed that outcome of the Industrial dispute pending before the Delhi Industrial Tribunal be awaited. The prayer of the appellant was declined by the Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh. The appellant filed CWP No.8119 of 2007 before this Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 7.11.2008, Annexure P.8. In the meantime, though it was not known to the petitioner but the Indian Newspaper Society had preferred CWP No.4940 of 2002 before the High Court of Delhi in which prayer was for quashing of the notifications dated 5.12.2000 and 15.12.2000, Annexures P.4 and P.5 respectively. Vide order dated 21.11.2006, Annexure P.9, the said notifications were quashed by the High Court of Delhi. No appeal was filed against the said order. In the meantime, adjudication of the industrial dispute proceeded before the Industrial Tribunal Delhi. The Tribunal also rejected the reference vide award dated 28.2.2011, Annexure P.10 on the ground that the same pertained to enforcement of the Manisana Wage Board's award and as the said award stood finally set aside by the order of the High Court of Delhi, the recommendations could not be enforced by judicial decree. The workmen of the appellant company filed CWP (C) No. 8676 of 2011 in the High Court of Delhi which was dismissed vide order dated 23.4.2013, Annexure P.11 holding that recommendations of the Manisana Wage Boards could not be judicially enforced. This fact was brought to the knowledge of the Labour Court-cum-Tribunal, Chandigarh. The Labour Court rejected the prayer of the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant approached this Court by filing CWP No.19275 of 2013 in which prayer was made for rejection of the reference in terms of the decision dated 23.4.2013 rendered by the High Court of Delhi. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 2.9.2013, Annexure P.13 by granting liberty to the appellant to approach the Industrial Tribunal by raising the plea which was sought to be raised before this Court. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application dated 9.9.2013, Annexure P.14 before the Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh for rejection of the reference. Respondent No.3 contested the application by filing reply dated 10.9.2013, Annexure P.15. The Tribunal vide order dated 18.9.2013, Annexure P.16 rejected the application. The writ petition filed against the said order by the appellant has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 21.10.2013, impugned herein. Hence the present Letters Patent Appeal by the appellant.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the reference of the industrial dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication was bad.