- (1.) In this application for appropriate writs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner is challenging an order dated November 1, 1974, passed by E.K. Moidu J., the Presiding Officer of the National Tribunal at Calcutta (being the Respondent No. 1 herein) refusing to entertain an application under Rule 28 of The Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, the refusal of the Government of India, as communicated by the letter dated September 22, 1973, to constitute a National Tribunal under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to hear such application and also an order of reference dated April 4, 1974, whereby the Government of West Bengal had referred certain matters to the Second Labour Court of West Bengal for adjudication.
(2.) The facts of this case, so far as relevant for the purpose of this case, are set out hereinbelow: The Petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act. The Petitioner is the proprietor of a newspaper known as The Statesman which is published in Calcutta and Delhi. The Petitioner has its offices, inter alia, at Calcutta, Delhi, Bombay and Madras. The employees of the Petitioner include persons who are working journalists within the meaning of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 1955 Act) and persons who are workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 1947 Act). According to the Petitioner the Respondents Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 herein are and at all material times had been employed by the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, these Respondents are employed in the process department and are called Process Artists. It may be pointed out that, according to the Respondents Nos. 8, 9, 11 and 12, the Respondent No. 10 is not at all employed in the process department as process artist. By a notification dated November 12, 1963, the Central Government constituted a Wage Board under Section 9 of the 1955 Act for the purpose of enabling the Central Government to fix or revise rates of wages in respect of working journalists (hereinafter referred to as the Journalists Wage Board). On February 25, 1964, the Central Government set up another Wage Board so far as the non-journalists employees are concerned (hereinafter referred to as the Non-Journalists Wage Board). It is to be pointed out that the Non-Journalists Wage Board was not constituted under any Statute. It is alleged by the Petitioners that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Non-Journalists Wage Board, by agreement made on April 21, 1964 and on May 29, 1964, purported settlements were arrived at by the Petitioners with the Statesman Clerical Staff Union and the Statesman Employees' Union for payment of interim relief. On December 12, 1964, the Non-Journalists, Wage Board made recommendations for interim relief for non-journalist employees. In or about the middle of the year 1967 the Journalists Wage Board made its recommendations. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 12 of the 1955 Act, on October 27, 1967, the Central Government made an order in terms of the recommendations of the Journalists Wage Board. As a result of the same every working journalist employed by the Petitioner became entitled to wages at a rate not less than the rates specified in the said recommendations. The recommendations of the Journalists Wage Board so far as relevant for the purpose of this case are set out hereinbelow: Chapter IV Recommendations Grouping of Working Journalists: 4.24 (I). Full Time Employees--(a) In daily newspapers Glass I, Class II and Class III: Class III : Reporter, Sub-Editor, CorRespondent, News Photographer, Calligraphist, Artists, Librarians and the Assistants and all working journalists other than those mentioned under any other group unless placed higher by the establishment. Remuneration 4.27. Wages, Scales and Grades--Working journalists of different groups employed in different classes of newspapers and news-agencies should be paid basic pay per mensem in accordance with the following scales: Applicable in Case of Daily Newspapers and News Agencies JUDGEMENT_50_LAWS(CAL)12_1975_1.html 6. A working journalist has to exercise his option for the new scale of pay within six months from the date of publication of the Government order on these recommendations. Schedule I Section I--Newspapers Group III 'Artist' is a person who prepares for publication 'drawing, layouts, maps, graphs or other similar embellishments, illustrations of any kind, or creative Article He may do some or all of these functions. 'Galligraphist' is an artist who performs journalistic work and also calligraph matters.
(3.) According to the Petitioner, the said recommendations of the Journalists Wage Board had no application to process artists who are not artists within the meaning of the said recommendations, nor working journalists nor journalists at all. It is further alleged that the Respondents Nos. 8 to 12 did not make any claim to be entitled to wages under the said recommendations until the end of 1971 and they did not exercise any option under para. 4.32(6) within the time fixed therein or at all. Thereafter, the Non-Journalists Wage Board made its recommendations and submitted its report which was accepted by the Central Government on November 18, 1967. This is denied and disputed by these Respondents. It is alleged by the Petitioner that after the publication of the recommendations of the Non-Journalists Wage Board, disputes arose between the Petitioner and other newspaper establishments and their respective employees with regard to the implementation thereof. It was further alleged by the Petitioner that there was a threat of strike to be announced on April 23, 1968. It is alleged by the Petitioner that the Petitioner averted this strike in its own establishment at Calcutta by agreeing to certain terms in oral negotiations with the relevant Union of its employees. It is further alleged that thereafter by an agreement signed on April 23, 1968, by the President of the Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society as representing the employers and the President and General Secretary of the All India Newspaper Employees' Federation as representing the employees, the strike in other establishments was called off upon certain terms. Thereafter, two letters, one on May 13 and the other on June 21, 1968, were written on behalf of the artists to the Petitioner which I shall refer to later. By an order dated September 17, 1968, the Central Government, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 7B and Sub-section (1A) of Section 10 of the 1947 Act, constituted a National Tribunal at Calcutta of which Banerjee J. was made the Presiding Officer and certain disputes specified therein were referred to the said National Tribunal for adjudication. A good deal of argument has been advanced regarding the scope of the said order and accordingly, I think it proper that the same should be set out herein: Order New Delhi, the 17th September, 1968 S.O. 3385. Whereas the Central Government is of the opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the employers and workmen in the newspaper establishments mentioned in the Annexure, in respect of the implementation of the recommendations of the Wage Board for non-journalist employees as accepted by the Central Government by its Resolution No. WB--17(7)/67, dated the 18th November, 1967, in regard to the matters mentioned in the Schedule; And whereas the said employers and their workmen agreed to settle the dispute amicably by negotiations on the basis that the employers would make an interim payment in addition to the existing emoluments of 70 per cent of the difference between the existing emoluments and the emoluments payable under the recommendations of the Wage Board for non-journalists aforesaid; And whereas such negotiations failed and the workmen have been on strike since the 23rd of July, 1968; And whereas the employers have since agreed to pay, in addition to the existing emoluments, 75 per cent of the difference between the existing emoluments and the emoluments payable under the Board's recommendations, to the workmen covered by the recommendations of the Wage Board from the date of resumption of work by the workmen and have further agreed to continue to pay the same up to the date when the Award on this reference becomes enforceable; And whereas the employers have further agreed that in fitting the pay of workmen in the pay scales determined by the Award on this reference, the total emoluments payable to workmen in accordance with the agreement mentioned in the preceding paragraph (hereinafter referred to as the employers agreement) immediately before the date on which the Award on this' reference becomes enforceable will be detected; And whereas the Central Government is of the opinion that the dispute involves questions of national importance and is also of such a nature that newspaper establishments situated in more than one state are likely to be interested in or affected by such dispute; And whereas the Central Government is of the opinion that the dispute should be adjudicated by a National Tribunal; Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 7B and Sub-section (1A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947), the Central Government hereby constitutes a National Tribunal at Calcutta of which Shri Justice B.N. Banerjee shall be the Presiding Officer and refers the said dispute to the said National Tribunal for adjudication. Schedule (1) Whether the recommendations of the Wage Board for non-journalist employees as accepted by Government by its Resolution No. WB-17(7)/67 dated the 18th November, 1967, are unfair or reasonable and if so, what modifications are required therein to ensure a just and fair wage structure for the non-journalists, having due regard to the paying capacity of the respective newspaper establishments, the employers' agreement and the emoluments and employees engaged in comparable establishments; (2) Whether any categories of non-journalists employees in the newspaper establishments mentioned in the Annexure stand excluded from the recommendation of the Wage Board and if so, which those categories are and what the wage structure for such categories should be; (3) Whether according to the recommendations of the Wage Board for non-journalists employees as accepted by Government by its Resolution No. WB-17(7)/67 dated the 18th November, 1967, the Free Press Journal, Bombay, is to be placed in Class III and if not, what its classification should be. Annexure (1) The Statesman--Calcutta and New Delhi (2) The Indian Press--Bombay and New Delhi (3) The Free Press Journal--Bombay (4) The Hindusthan Times--New Delhi (5) The Hindusthan Standard--Calcutta (6) The Ananda Bazar Patrika--Calcutta;