M/S.Media Anupam Ltd,Berhampur Vs Presiding Officer,Labour Court,Bbsr

¶1

ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK

¶2

AFR

¶3

W.P.(C) No. 4771 of 2016

¶4

In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶5

¶6

M/s. Media Anupam Ltd., Berhampur ..… Petitioner

¶7

-Versus-

¶8

Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar and another ….. Opp. Parties For petitioner : M/s Sanjay Kumar Mishra, S.S. Sahoo & N.C. Rout, Advocates For opp. parties : Mr. Deepak Kumar Pani Advocate [O.P.2] P R E S E N T:

¶9

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO

¶10

Date of Hearing and Judgment : 15.02.2024

¶11

DR. B.R. SARANGI, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition

¶12

seeking to quash the order dated 19.12.2015 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in Misc. Case No. 53 of 2013, by which the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar rejected the objection petition filed by the petitioner-Management

¶13

// 2 //

¶14

with regard to maintainability of the petition filed by the workman under Section 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act and held that the application filed by the workman under Section 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for computation of the money due to him from his employer is maintainable.

¶15

The brief fact leading to filing of this case is that opposite party no.2-workman filed a claim application in Form T-3, before the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 53 of 2013, stating therein that he joined the establishment of the petitioner-Management on 06.05.2012 in the post of peon of daily newspaper “The Anupam Bharat”. The said establishment, Media Anupam Ltd. is having its head office at Bramhapur and its main edition is at Bramhapur and another edition is at Rayagada, besides the Bhubaneswar edition. His job was regular in nature. But he was not paid his monthly salary as per the salary fixed by the Wage Board Tribunal from time to time.

¶16

3.1. It has also been pleaded therein that like other newspaper establishments throughout India, the

¶17

// 3 //

¶18

petitioner-Management being a newspaper establishment, is governed under the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, in short “Working Journalists Act, 1955”. The Central Government also fixes/revises the Rates of Wages for Non-Journalist Newspaper employees under Section 13 B of the said Act by fixing Wage Board Tribunals from

¶19

time to time.

¶20

3.2. The Central Government constituted the

¶21

Magithia Wage Board Tribunal for revising the rates of wages for working journalist and non-journalist newspaper employees all over India which came into force on 01.07.2010. The Newspaper in question comes under Class II of the Magithia Wages Board stipulation, as its Gross Revenue is within the range of 10 Crores and 30 Crores in a year.

¶22

3.3. It has also been pleaded that the said statement of claim has been made considering his post of appointment, date of joining, salary due as per Magithia Wage Board recommendations, which he is

¶23

// 4 //

¶24

entitled to get the differential wages due to him by adding 15% interest on unpaid dues, which he is entitled, by calculating the gross revenue of the petitioner-Management as per its classification. The salary paid to him was not in accordance with Magithia Wage Board Scale of Pay and in spite of several approaches the petitioner-Management did not care to consider for personal approaches.

¶25

3.4. Since there are separate provisions for the working journalist and non-journalist newspaper employees all over India under the Act for payment of wages at revised rates the same is implementable for the working journalist and non-journalist newspaper employees as has been awarded in ID Case No. 84 of 2008 by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar and hence, it was prayed to direct the petitioner-Management to pay the differential wages along with allowances to opposite party no.2-workman after determination of the said amount.

¶26

3.5. In response to the said claim application, the petitioner-Management filed an objection petition raising

¶27

// 5 //

¶28

the question of maintainability of the petition under Section 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947. The Labour Court however passed an order on 19.12.2015 by holding that the claim application filed under Section 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 is maintainable. The said order dated 19.12.2015 is under challenge in the present writ petition by the petitioner-Management.

¶29

Mr. N.C. Rout, learned counsel appearing for

¶30

the petitioner contended that opposite party no.2workman had filed the application under Section 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for computation of monetary benefits in his favour. Such petition is not maintainable in view of Section 17 (1), 17 (2) and 17 (3) of the Working

¶31

Journalists Act, 1955. The Labour Court without appreciating such fact held that the petition under Section 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 is maintainable, which can not sustain in the eye of law.

¶32

Mr. D.K. Pani, learned counsel appearing for

¶33

the opposite party no.2-workman contended that since the workman has filed the application before the Labour Court for computation and grant of monetary benefits

¶34

// 6 //

¶35

and an objection was raised with regard to

¶36

maintainability of the application, however, the Labour Court taking into consideration the decision rendered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Business Manager, Andhra Printers Ltd. v Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and others , 1992 (3) ALT 519 held that the petition under Section 33-C (2) of the

¶37

I.D. Act, 1947 is maintainable and accordingly rejected

¶38

the objection raised by the petitioner-Management.

¶39

This Court heard Mr. N.C. Rout, learned

¶40

counsel appearing for the petitioner-Management and Mr. D.K. Pani, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2-workman. On the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, this writ petition is being finally disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶41

As it appears, the opposite party no.2-

¶42

workman, claiming an amount of Rs.2,98,311.00 from the petitioner-Management filed a claim petition under Section 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 before the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 53 of 2013. The Management filed a show

¶43

// 7 //

¶44

cause reply on 09.06.2014, challenging the maintainability of the proceeding before the Labour Court on several grounds inter alia that the benefit claimed by the workman is not capable of computation by the Labour Court. The further ground was that the claim of the workman without adjudication of his right under Section 33-A of the Act is not maintainable and there is also specific provision under Section 17 of the Working Journalists Act, 1955, for which the workman cannot take resort to the provision of Section 33-C (2) of I.D. Act, 1947. Reliance has been placed to the decisions in the case of State of U.P. and another v. Brijpal Singh , 2005 STPL (LE) 34967 SC; Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited v. Workmen and another , 1974 STPL(LE) 7350 SC; Bishnu Charan Ojha and others v. P.O., Labour Court, Bhubaneswar and others , 1997 (II) OLR 460; and M/s. Bennet Coleman & CO. Ltd. v. State of Bihar and others , 2015 (145) FLR 217 SC.

¶45

On perusal of the application of the workman filed under Section 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act, it is found

¶46

// 8 //

¶47

that he has claimed his wages as per the recommendation of Majithia Wage Board. The Central Government has accepted the recommendations of Majithia Wage Board which was also notified. So there is no bar on the part of the workman to claim his wages as per the Majithia Wage Board recommendations. The claim made by the workman can be computed by the Labour Court. Section 33-C(2) of I.D. Act, 1947 is an independent section under which the workman can claim the money due to him without taking resort of any other provisions under the Act, such as Section 17 (1), 17 (2) and 17 (3) of Working Journalists Act, 1955. On perusal of Section-17(1) of the Working Journalists Act, 1955 it transpires that where any amount is due under the said Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, without prejudice any other mode of recovery, he can make an application to the State Government for recovery. Whereas Section 33-C(2) of I.D. Act,1947 also empowers a workman to file his claim before the Labour Court. Thereby, the option lies with the workman to choose any mode of recovery as he chooses, i.e. either by approaching the State Government or by approaching

¶48

// 9 //

¶49

the Labour Court under Section 33-C (2) of the Act. Therefore, provisions contained in the Working Journalist Act, 1955 do not debar the workman to file

¶50

his claim under section 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act, as has been held by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Business Manager, M/s, Andhra Printers Ltd. (supra).

¶51

In the considered opinion of this Court, to

¶52

maintain an application under Section 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act for a claim, the workman should have an existing right in his favour for such benefit. Mere denial of right by an employer will not be sufficient to negative the claim of the workman under Section 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act. Therefore, the application under Section 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act to grant the monetary benefits as due and admissible in terms of the right accrued in his favour cannot be denied on the flimsy ground of maintainability of the petition.

¶53

Therefore, the Labour Court is well justified in

¶54

rejecting the objection of the Management with regard to maintainability of the application and holding that the

¶55

// 10 //

¶56

application filed under Section 33-C (2) is maintainable. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the

¶57

same.

¶58

In view of the above, the writ petition filed by the Management stands dismissed. While dismissing the writ petition, this Court makes an observation that since the matter is pending from the year 2013, the Labour Court shall do well to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible by giving opportunity of hearing to all the

¶59

parties. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶60

(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
M.S. SAHOO, J. I agree.

¶61

(M.S. SAHOO) JUDGE

¶62

Orissa High Court, Cuttack

¶63

The 15^th February, 2024, Arun

¶64

Signature Not Verified

¶65

Digitally Signed Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 20-Feb-2024 12:42:07

M/S.Media Anupam Ltd,Berhampur v. Presiding Officer,Labour Court,Bbsr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Media Anupam Ltd,Berhampur v. Presiding Officer,Labour Court,Bbsr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maheswar Kar Vs State of Odisha

Shree S.K.Sarif Vs State and Ors.

Deepak Kumar Jena Vs the Ombudsman Ii, Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission, Bbsr

Dist. Centre Sai Khudra Bebasai Sangha Vs State of Odisha

Biranchi Prasad Jena Vs Management of General Manager, Daitari Ironore Project

Md.Naushad Ali Vs the State of Odisha