Allowed

Hindustan Media Ventures Limited Through Its Authorized Representative Neeraj Shukla v. Labour

Jharkhand HC13 Aug 2019WPC/1435/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed certificate proceedings and recovery letters for wages without prior adjudication, directing the State to refer the dispute to a Labour Court under Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists Act for expeditious determination.

What did the court decide?

Quashed Certificate Case No.07/wages/2016-17 and letter dated 23.12.2016; remitted matter for reference under Section 17(2) of the Act.

Hindustan Media Ventures Limited Through… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (L) No. 1435 of 2017

¶3

Hindustan Media Ventures Limited through its Authorized Representative Neeraj Shukla, S/o Sri Avadhesh Chandra Shukla, Office situated at 7, Industrial Area, Kokar, P.O. Kokar, P.S. Sadar, District- Ranchi … Petitioner

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Principal Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment, Training and Skill Development, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Ranchi

¶7

The Labour Commissioner, Department of Labour, Employment, Training and Skill Development, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Ranchi

¶8

The Joint Labour Commissioner, Department of Labour, Employment, Training and Skill Development, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Ranchi

¶9

The Labour Superintendent, P.O. & P.S. Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum (Jharkhand)

¶10

The Deputy Commissioner cum District Certificate Officer, P.O. & P.S. Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand

¶11

Devendra Prasad Singh, Son of Late Shiv Dhari Singh, Resident of Sahara Sundervan, Phase-1, near to NH-33, Mango, P.O. & P.S. Mango, Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum, Pin-831012 (Jharkhand) … Respondents

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶13

----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Vishnu Kumar Mahto, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Krishna Shankar, S.C. (L&C)-II Mr. Nitish Krishna, A.C. to S.C.(L&C)-II For Respondent No.7 : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate Ms. Anjana Rana, Advocate -----

¶14

06/13.08.2019. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the certificate proceeding being Certificate Case No.07/wages/2016-17 and letter dated 23.12.2016, whereby, requisition has been made to the Certificate Officer for recovery of amount of Rs.28,67,042/-.

¶15

It appears that respondent no.7 has retired from the post of Chief Content Officer from the newspaper published by the petitioner. Respondent no.7 has claimed wages as per the recommendation of Majithia Wage Board, which has been gazetted dated 11.11.2011.

¶16

It is the grievance of the petitioner that requisition for above amount has been made without adjudication under Section 17 of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955. Section 17 of the said Act reads as under:

¶17

-2-

¶18

“ 17. Recovery of money due from an employer -(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, 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.

¶19

(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 1997), 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.

¶20

(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).”

¶21

Thus, the mandate of the Act is clear that if the amount is not in dispute then sub-section(1) will be applicable and recovery is to be made by certificate proceeding and if the adjudication is to be done under sub-section(2) then the certificate proceeding will be initiated at the instance of the State Government which may be referred to Certificate Officer and amount should be recovered in the manner under sub-section(1).

¶22

Admittedly in the present case, the claim has been raised before respondent no.5 by the concerned employee and claim has been accepted in toto without considering the objection and certificate proceeding has been initiated. Both the counsel has drawn my attention to the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 13.10.2017 passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 187 of 2017 in Contempt Petition (C) No. 411 of 2014, which reads as under:

¶23

“1. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the applicant we clarify our Judgment dated 19.06.2017 to mean that dispute(s) referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 will be disposed of by the concerned Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within

¶24

-3-

¶25

six months of the reference being made.

¶26

With the aforesaid clarification the miscellaneous application is disposed of.”

¶27

Thus from the above provisions and judicial pronouncement, it is evident that the claim has to be adjudicated by the concerned Labour Court then only for recovery of the ascertain amount, certificate proceeding can be initiated. Admittedly in the present case, there is no adjudication.

¶28

In view of the above discussion and judicial pronouncement, the impugned certificate proceeding being Certificate Case No.07/wages/2016-17 and letter dated 23.12.2016 are hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to the concerned authority of the State Government for reference under Section 17(2) of the Act for adjudication of the claim raised by the respondentemployee. It is expected that the concerned authority will refer the matter within three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Upon such reference, concerned Labour Court/Tribunal is directed to conclude the proceeding within six months from the date of reference. Both the parties are expected to co-operate in the proceeding.

¶29

With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶30

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶31

Ajay/

Hindustan Media Ventures Limited Through Its Authorized Representative Neeraj Shukla v. Labour

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hindustan Media Ventures Limited Through Its Authorized Representative Neeraj Shukla v. Labour

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subodh Beck Vs Management of B.S.Plant,Bokaro

Employers in Relation Bhowra O Vs Their Workmen

Sudeshwar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Employees in Relation to the Management of Kathara Colliery of Ms C C L through Sri Bimlendu Kumar Vs Their Workmen Sita Ram Mahto

Suka Oraon Vs Ms Central Coalfields Limited through Its General Manager Administration

Basanti Devi Goyanka Sewa Sada Vs Rajesh Prasad Verma