Mere Mention Of Certain Sections In Title Of Claim Made Before Labour Court Will Not Determine Its Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court

While dismissing the special appeal field by Jagran Prakashan against the order of the Single Judge, the Allahabad High Court has held that mere mention of certain sections in the title of an application/claim and reference made to a Labour Court will not determine the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court held that jurisdiction can be determined by the substance of the arguments and averments made in such application/claim and reference.The bench comprising of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held “It is well settled that the title of an application/claim and reference made therein does not determine the jurisdiction of a forum. The same only depends on the substance of the application/claim/demand.”Case BackgroundPetitioner, 'Dainik Jagran' newspaper, is an establishment as defined under section 2(d) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Condition of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 ('WJ Act'). There were 56 references made by the employees who were appointed on various posts including, Dispatcher, on probation. Two Wage Boards for journalist and non-journalist employees were constituted by the Central Government under section 9 and 13-C of the WJ Act. The recommendations so made by the Majithia Wage Board were challenged along with the vires of the Act of 1955.Paragraph 20-J of the Wage Board recommendations is as under:“20(J) The revised pay scales shall become applicable to all employees with effect from the 1st of July 2010. However, if an employee within three weeks from the date of publication of the Government Notification u/s 12 of the Act enforcing these recommendations exercises his / her option for retaining his existing pay scales and existing emoluments, he/she shall be entitled to retain his / her existing scales and such emoluments.”Before the writ Court, Jagran Prakashan contended that the employees had retained their existing wages and existing emoluments through a voluntary undertaking in terms of the mandate of para 20(J) of the recommendations. Despite giving an undertaking in terms of the clause 20(J) of the Wage Board, 198 persons filed a claim under section 17(1) of the Act before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Noida who decided in favor of 57 employees. The issue framed by the Court was whether once Clause 20(J) of the Wage Board is in existence and has been notified as such, any claim over and above the undertaking given by the employees would not be maintainable. The writ Court had dismissed the petition with a cost of Rs. 25,000 to be given by Jagaran Prakashan to that petitioner. “The argument of the counsel for the petitioner in the light of the provisions of Clause 20(J), if accepted, would render the entire Act inapplicable and if the said argument is accepted, the same would be in clear violation of the mandate of Section 12, 13, 13-C, 13-D and Section 16 of the Act,” held the Court was challenged in the review jurisdiction. Review application filed by Jagran Prakashan was dismissed. The Court had imposed additional cost of Rs. 10,000 on Jagran Prakashan to be paid to each employee who has been denied benefits of the Majithia Wage Board recommendations. Thereafter, Jagran Prakashan filed the special appeal challenging the order of the Single Judge on grounds that the main issue before the Single Judge was whether reference could be made under the UP Industrial Disputes Act or Central Industrial Disputes Act to the Industrial Disputes tribunal or the Labour Court. It was argued that whether State Government was the appropriate government was not the issues. It was argued that once reference to Section 16-A of the Working Journalists Act had been made, the Central Industrial Disputes Act was the only enactment applicable. It was argued that the dispute was only referable to Industrial Disputes Tribunal and not the Labour Court at Noida. Per contra, counsel for respondent-workman argued that the dismissal of the writ petitions filed by the appellant was justified as in earlier writ petitions filed by Jagran Prakashan the Court had upheld the reference by the State Government to Labour Court. Further, it was argued that dismissal of workmen was covered by the Second Schedule of Central ID Act and First Schedule of UPID Act. Therefore, irrespective of the applicability of Working Journalists Act, the reference to Labour Court by the State Government was valid. High Court VerdictThe Court expressed surprise on the conduct of Jagran Prakashan as the reference was made in 2019 but was challenged for the first time in 2023. The Court observed that reference was only made regarding the validity of the termination. Issues regarding payment of wages were not raised in the reference made. The Court held that under the Second Schedule of the Central Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court has the jurisdiction to deal with 'discharge or dismissal of workmen including reinstatement of, or grant of relief to, workmen wrongfully...

Mere Mention Of Certain Sections In Title Of Claim Made Before Labour Court Will Not Determine Its Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

Tags