SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH,J. - (1.) All the aforesaid writ petitions have been filed by Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd., a body corporate, raising a common questions. Writ C No. 14105 of 2017 has been treated as the lead case, a brief statement of the dispute in each petition is given below:- Writ C No. 15082/2017 has been filed by the petitioner in respect of claim made by Sri Nitesh Gupta, who was appointed as Assistant Manager in the Supply Chain but who made a claim under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming himself to be a "working journalist". The said claim has been allowed in the like manner as claim was allowed in the case of Anek Singh - the lead case. Writ C No. 15085/2017 has been filed by the petitioner in respect of claim made by Sri Jaswant Rai, who was appointed as Assistant Executive in the Supply Chain but who made a claim under Section 17(1) of the Act. The said claim has been allowed in the like manner as claim was allowed in the case of Anek Singh - the lead case. Writ C No. 15143/2017 has been filed by the petitioner in respect of claim made by Sri Bhoori Singh, who was originally appointed as Assistant Executive and later promoted to Executive in the Supply Chain but who made a claim under Section 17(1) of the Act. The said claim has been allowed in the like manner as claim was allowed in the case of Anek Singh - the lead case. Writ C No. 15147/2017 has been filed by the petitioner in respect of claim made by Sri Bappa Halder, who was appointed in the Supply Chain but who made a claim under Section 17(1) of the Act. The said claim has been allowed in the like manner as claim was allowed in the case of Anek Singh - the lead case. Writ C No. 16484/2017 has been filed by the petitioner in respect of claim made by Sri Veerbahadur Kushwaha, who was appointed as Assistant Executive in the Supply Chain but who made a claim under Section 17(1) of the Act. The said claim has been allowed in the like manner as claim was allowed in the case of Anek Singh - the lead case. Writ C No. 16487/2017 has been filed by the petitioner in respect of claim made by Sri Premraj Singh, who was appointed as Assistant Manager in the Supply Chain but who made a claim under Section 17(1) of the Act. The said claim has been allowed in the like manner as claim was allowed in the case of Anek Singh - the lead case. Writ C No. 16492/2017 has been filed by the petitioner in respect of claim made by Sri Rajkumar Sharma, who was appointed in the Supply Chain but who made a claim under Section 17(1) of the Act. The said claim has been allowed in the like manner as claim was allowed in the case of Anek Singh - the lead case. Writ C No. 16494/2017 has been filed by the petitioner in respect of claim made by Sri Jogender Singh, who was appointed as Senior Executive in the Supply Chain but who made a claim under Section 17(1) of the Act. The said claim has been allowed in the like manner as claim was allowed in the case of Anek Singh - the lead case. Writ C No. 16496/2017 has been filed by the petitioner in respect of claim made by Sri Abnesh Kumar, who was appointed as Executive in the Supply Chain but who made a claim under Section 17(1) of the Act. The said claim has been allowed in the like manner as claim was allowed in the case of Anek Singh - the lead case. Writ C No. 16499/2017 has been filed by the petitioner in respect of claim made by Sri Amit Kumar Patel, who was appointed as Assistant Executive Trainee in the Supply Chain but who made a claim under Section 17(1) of the Act. The said claim has been allowed in the like manner as claim was allowed in the case of Anek Singh - the lead case. Writ C No. 14105 of 2017 (lead case) This writ petition has been filed to quash order dated 25.3.2017 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Agra under Section 17(1) of the Act.
(2.) While, elaborate argument have been made by learned counsel for the parties in support of their respective cases, the issue involved in the present writ petition is short, namely, whether the amount directed to be paid by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, vide its order dated 25.3.2017 is such as may be described as 'due under this Act' for the purpose of Section 17(1) of the Act or whether it is a claim made by the employees of the petitioner that requires prior adjudication through reference procedure in accordance with Section 17(2) of the Act. Section 17(1), (2) and (3) of the Act reads as under:- "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 authorized 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. (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 1947), 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. (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 subsection (1). The aforesaid provisions are analogous to the provision of Section 33(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Similar provisions also exist under Section 6 H of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
(3.) Sri Navin Sinha Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Imranullah and Sri Mohammad Khalid, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted, for jurisdiction to arise and a valid order under Section 17(1) of the Act to be passed, there must pre-exist an amount which is due. On the other hand, if there is a dispute as to the entitlement to the amount being claimed and/or computation of the amount, only option open to the claimant would be to seek reference of such dispute under Section 17(2) of the Act.;