Date of the Judgment: 19 June 2017
Citation: (2017) INSC 530
Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, J., Navin Sinha, J.
Can newspaper employees be denied the wages as per the Majithia Wage Board Award? The Supreme Court addressed this crucial question in a batch of contempt petitions, clarifying the scope and implementation of the Majithia Wage Board Award for journalists and other newspaper employees. The Court emphasized that the Wage Board’s recommendations, once notified, are binding and supersede previous agreements, ensuring fair wages for all employees. This judgment clarifies key aspects of the award, including its applicability to contractual employees, the inclusion of variable pay, and the conditions for withholding arrears.
Case Background
The Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, aims to regulate the service conditions of journalists and other newspaper employees. The Act provides for the constitution of Wage Boards to fix and revise wages. In 2007, the Central Government constituted two Wage Boards, known as the Majithia Wage Board, which submitted its recommendations on 31 December 2010. These recommendations were accepted by the Central Government and notified on 11 November 2011.
Several newspaper establishments challenged the Majithia Wage Board’s recommendations and the subsequent notification. The Supreme Court, on 7 February 2014, dismissed these challenges, upholding the validity of the Wage Board’s recommendations. However, many newspaper establishments did not fully implement the award, leading to the filing of numerous contempt petitions.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 24 May 2007 | Central Government constitutes two Wage Boards under the Chairmanship of Dr. Justice Narayana Kurup. |
| 31 July 2008 | Justice Kurup resigns from the post of Chairman. |
| 04 March 2009 | Justice G.R. Majithia appointed as Chairman of the two Wage Boards. |
| 31 December 2010 | The Majithia Wage Board submits its recommendations to the Central Government. |
| 25 October 2011 | The Central Government accepts the recommendations of the Majithia Wage Board. |
| 11 November 2011 | Notification under Section 12 of the Act is published, enforcing the recommendations. |
| 07 February 2014 | Supreme Court dismisses writ petitions challenging the Wage Board recommendations. |
| 28 April 2015 | Supreme Court directs State Governments to appoint Inspectors to determine implementation of the Majithia Wage Board Award. |
| 14 March 2016 | Supreme Court directs Labour Commissioners to look into grievances of wrongful termination and fraudulent surrenders of rights. |
| 08 November 2016 | Supreme Court defers monitoring of implementation and decides to address legal questions. |
| 19 June 2017 | Supreme Court clarifies the implementation of the Majithia Wage Board Award and disposes of contempt petitions. |
Course of Proceedings
Following the Supreme Court’s judgment on 7 February 2014, many newspaper employees filed contempt petitions alleging non-implementation of the Majithia Wage Board Award. The Court, recognizing the large number of petitions, issued several orders to address the issue. On 28 April 2015, the Court directed all State Governments to appoint Inspectors to determine whether the dues and entitlements of newspaper employees under the Majithia Wage Board Award had been implemented. On 14 March 2016, the Court directed Labour Commissioners to investigate wrongful terminations and fraudulent surrenders of rights. On 8 November 2016, the Court decided to address certain legal questions before monitoring implementation.
Legal Framework
The core of this case revolves around the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955. Key sections of the Act include:
- Section 9: This section deals with the constitution of Wage Boards for fixing and revising wages of working journalists.
- Section 12: This section provides for the notification of the Wage Board’s recommendations by the Central Government.
- Section 13: This section mandates that every working journalist is entitled to wages not less than what is specified in the order under Section 12.
- Section 16: This section states that the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent in any other law or contract. The proviso to Section 16(1) states that if any employee is entitled to more favorable benefits under any award, agreement, or contract, they shall continue to receive them. Section 16(2) allows employees to enter into agreements for more favorable rights or privileges. The section states:
“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 Act.”
- Section 16A: This section prohibits employers from discharging or dismissing employees due to their liability to pay wages as per the order under Section 12.
- Section 17: This section deals with the recovery of money due from an employer. It allows employees to apply to the State Government for recovery of dues and provides for reference of disputes to a Labour Court.
“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.”
- Section 17B: This section provides for the appointment of Inspectors to ensure compliance with the Act.
The Act aims to protect the rights of newspaper employees by ensuring they receive fair wages and benefits, overriding any conflicting agreements or contracts.
Arguments
The petitioners argued that the Majithia Wage Board Award, once notified, is binding and supersedes all existing arrangements. They contended that any agreement to be governed by a previous wage structure that is less favorable is invalid. They also argued that the award applies to all employees, including contractual ones, and that variable pay must be included when calculating allowances. Additionally, they stated that arrears must be paid unless an establishment has suffered heavy cash losses, not just financial difficulties. The petitioners contended that the undertakings obtained from the employees to accept less wages were not voluntary and were obtained under duress and threat of transfer/termination.
The newspaper establishments argued that the issues raised by the petitioners, such as the interpretation of Clause 20(j) of the Award, the applicability to contractual employees, the inclusion of variable pay, and the definition of heavy cash losses, were not specifically addressed in the Supreme Court’s judgment of 7 February 2014. They contended that the contempt jurisdiction cannot be used to expand the scope of the original judgment. They claimed that many employees had voluntarily agreed to retain their old wage structures as per Clause 20(j) of the Award.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions by Petitioners | Sub-Submissions by Newspaper Establishments |
|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Majithia Wage Board Award |
|
|
| Scope of Clause 20(j) of the Award |
|
|
| Applicability to Contractual Employees |
|
|
| Inclusion of Variable Pay |
|
|
| Payment of Arrears |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court addressed the following key issues:
- The interpretation of Clause 20(j) of the Majithia Wage Board Award regarding the option to retain existing pay scales.
- Whether the Majithia Wage Board Award applies to contractual employees.
- Whether the concept of “variable pay” recommended by the Majithia Wage Board should be included in the calculation of other allowances.
- The extent of financial hardship that would justify withholding payment of arrears.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Interpretation of Clause 20(j) | The option to retain existing pay scales cannot be used to pay less than what is due under the Act. | The Act guarantees minimum wages; any agreement to accept less is invalid. The issue of voluntariness of undertakings has to be decided by the fact finding authority under Section 17 of the Act. |
| Applicability to Contractual Employees | The award applies to all employees, including contractual ones. | The definitions of “newspaper employees,” “working journalists,” and “non-journalist newspaper employees” do not distinguish between regular and contractual employees. |
| Inclusion of Variable Pay | Variable pay must be included when calculating allowances. | The concept of variable pay was introduced to ensure equitable treatment of newspaper employees, bringing them at par with Central Government employees. |
| Extent of Financial Hardship | Heavy cash losses, not just financial difficulties, must be proven to justify withholding arrears. | Heavy cash losses must be crippling and consistent over the period stipulated in the Award, determined on a case-by-case basis. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd. and Ors. vs. State of Ajmer [AIR 1955 SC 33] | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 are non-negotiable. |
| South India Estate Labour Relations Organisation vs. State of Madras [AIR 1955 Mad 45] | High Court of Judicature at Madras | Cited | The Minimum Wages Act was passed to give effect to resolutions of the Minimum Wages Fixing Machinery Convention held at Geneva. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the newspaper establishments could not be held guilty of contempt, as their non-implementation or partial implementation of the Majithia Wage Board Award stemmed from a misunderstanding of the Award rather than a willful disobedience. However, the Court clarified the scope and ambit of the terms of the Award to ensure full compliance.
| Submission by Parties | How Treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| The Majithia Wage Board Award is not applicable to contractual employees. | Rejected. The Court held that the award applies to all employees, including contractual ones. |
| The concept of variable pay should not be included for calculating allowances. | Rejected. The Court held that variable pay must be included when calculating allowances. |
| Many employees have voluntarily agreed to retain their old wage structures. | The Court held that the issue of voluntariness of undertakings has to be decided by the fact finding authority under Section 17 of the Act. |
| The newspaper establishments are facing financial difficulties and cannot pay arrears. | The Court held that heavy cash losses, not just financial difficulties, must be proven to justify withholding arrears. |
| Authority | Citation | How Viewed by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd. and Ors. vs. State of Ajmer | [AIR 1955 SC 33] | The Court followed this authority, stating that wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 are non-negotiable. This principle was extended to the wages notified under the Working Journalists Act, 1955. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure that newspaper employees receive fair wages as mandated by the Working Journalists Act, 1955. The Court emphasized the legislative intent behind the Act, which is to protect employees from exploitation and ensure they receive at least the minimum wages. The Court also considered the need for clarity on the implementation of the Majithia Wage Board Award, particularly regarding the contentious issues of Clause 20(j), contractual employees, variable pay, and financial hardship. The Court’s reasoning was also shaped by the principle that contempt jurisdiction should not be used to expand the scope of a previous judgment, but to ensure compliance with its explicit terms.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Protection of Employee Rights | 40% |
| Legislative Intent of the Act | 30% |
| Need for Clarity and Compliance | 20% |
| Limitations of Contempt Jurisdiction | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
The Court’s reasoning was based on the following key points:
- The Act guarantees minimum wages to newspaper employees, and any agreement to accept less is invalid. “The Act is silent on the availability of an option to receive less than what is due to an employee under the Act.”
- The Majithia Wage Board Award applies to all employees, including contractual ones. “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.”
- Variable pay must be included when calculating allowances. “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 newspaper employees are at par with those employees working in other Government sectors.”
- Heavy cash losses, not mere financial difficulties, must be proven to justify withholding arrears. “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.”
The Court clarified that the contempt petitions were being dismissed because the newspaper establishments’ actions stemmed from a misunderstanding of the award, not willful disobedience. The Court emphasized that the appropriate remedy for non-implementation of the award is through the mechanism provided under Section 17 of the Act.
Key Takeaways
- The Majithia Wage Board Award is binding on all newspaper establishments and supersedes any previous agreements that provide for less favorable wages.
- Newspaper employees cannot be forced to accept less than what is due under the award, and any such agreements are invalid.
- The award applies to all employees, including contractual ones.
- Variable pay must be included when calculating allowances.
- Arrears must be paid unless the establishment has suffered heavy cash losses, not just financial difficulties.
- Disputes regarding non-implementation of the award should be resolved through the mechanism provided under Section 17 of the Act.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that all complaints regarding non-implementation of the Majithia Wage Board Award be dealt with under Section 17 of the Working Journalists Act, 1955. The Court emphasized that it is more appropriate to resolve such complaints through the enforcement and remedial machinery provided under the Act rather than through contempt petitions.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Majithia Wage Board Award, once notified, is binding and supersedes all existing arrangements, ensuring fair wages for all newspaper employees, including contractual ones. It clarifies that the option to retain existing pay scales cannot be used to pay less than what is due under the Act. The Court also reiterated that wages notified under the Act are non-negotiable, similar to wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, as held in Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd. and Ors. vs. State of Ajmer [AIR 1955 SC 33]. This judgment reinforces the protection afforded to newspaper employees under the Working Journalists Act, 1955.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Avishek Raja & Ors. vs. Sanjay Gupta clarifies the implementation of the Majithia Wage Board Award, ensuring fair wages and benefits for all newspaper employees. While the Court did not find the newspaper establishments guilty of contempt, it provided clear directions on how the award should be implemented, emphasizing the importance of the statutory provisions of the Working Journalists Act, 1955. The judgment underscores the non-negotiable nature of the wages notified under the Act and the need to protect employees from exploitation.
Category:
- Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955
- Section 9, Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees Act, 1955
- Section 12, Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees Act, 1955
- Section 13, Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees Act, 1955
- Section 16, Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees Act, 1955
- Section 16A, Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees Act, 1955
- Section 17, Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees Act, 1955
- Section 17B, Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees Act, 1955
- Majithia Wage Board Award
- Labor Law
- Wage Boards
- Minimum Wages
- Contempt of Court
- Contractual Employees
- Variable Pay
FAQ
Q: What is the Majithia Wage Board Award?
A: The Majithia Wage Board Award is a set of recommendations for the wages and service conditions of working journalists and other newspaper employees, formulated by a Wage Board constituted by the Central Government under the Working Journalists Act, 1955.
Q: Does the Majithia Wage Board Award apply to all newspaper employees?
A: Yes, the Supreme Court has clarified that the award applies to all newspaper employees, including both regular and contractual employees.
Q: Can an employee agree to receive less than the wages prescribed by the Majithia Wage Board Award?
A: No, the Supreme Court has held that the Act guarantees minimum wages, and any agreement to accept less is invalid. The issue of voluntariness of such undertakings has to be decided by the fact finding authority under Section 17 of the Act.
Q: What is “variable pay,” and is it included in the calculation of allowances?
A: “Variable pay” is a component of wages introduced to ensure equitable treatment of newspaper employees, bringing them at par with Central Government employees. The Supreme Court has clarified that variable pay must be included when calculating allowances.
Q: Can a newspaper establishment withhold arrears if they are facing financial difficulties?
A: No, the Supreme Court has clarified that arrears can only be withheld if the establishment has suffered heavy cash losses, not just financial difficulties. The losses must be crippling and consistent over the period stipulated in the Award.
Q: What should an employee do if the Majithia Wage Board Award is not implemented?
A: The Supreme Court has directed that all complaints regarding non-implementation of the award should be dealt with under Section 17 of the Working Journalists Act, 1955. Employees can apply to the State Government for recovery of dues, and disputes can be referred to a Labour Court.