HINDUSTAN MEDIA VENTURES LTD. Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(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:-

(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.