[Majithia Wage Board Recommendations] Employee's Satisfaction With Wages Not Absolute, Doesn't Preclude Them From Claiming Higher Wages: MP High Court

In a petition filed by Dainik Bhaskar challenging the order passed by the Labour Court (Hoshangabad), the Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that a declaration given by the employee stating that he is satisfied with the wages under Section 20(j) of Majithia Wage Board Recommendations cannot be deemed to be absolute. The employee receiving lesser wages won't be estopped from claiming higher wages as per the standards enshrined in Majithia Board Recommendations, the court added.Upon a recommendation from Dy. Labour Commissioner, a reference was made by the state government pursuant to a statement of claim made by the newspaper employee under Section 17(2) of The Working Journalists And Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 for pay scale enhancement. Adjudicating the said reference, the Labour Court had directed Dainik Bhaskar to pay an additional amount of Rs. 9,82,751/- along with Rs. 22,031/- towards interim relief for his stint as the Sub-Editor and Dy. News Editor at DB for the period of 2009-2016.E PERIOD OF 2009 The single-judge bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia held that Clause 20(j) of the Board Recommendations should be interpreted in such a manner that a declaration under the same could only allow an employee to draw wages higher than what has been prescribed by the Board, and the same can be retained by such employee. The employer will not be in a position to reduce the pay scale later by strictly adhering to the pay recommendations made by the Board, the court underscored.“….clause 20(j) of recommendation of Majithia Wage Board cannot be interpreted that the employer can ignore the recommendations by obtaining a declaration from an employee to the effect that he is satisfied with lower pay scale, although he is entitled for higher pay scale….”, the bench sitting at Jabalpur held.The court also placed reliance on precedents such as M/s Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd. v. State of M.P. (2019) and Avishek Raja v. Sanjay (2017), where it has been categorically held that Section 12 of the 1955 Act r/w Majithia Board Recommendations is silent on the availability of an option to receive less than what is due to an employee under the Act.The court also emphasized that paying employees less than the minimum wages prescribed will be punishable under Section 22 of the Minimum Wages Act.“….Thus, if the contention of the Petitioner, that if a declaration has been made by an employee under Clause 20(j)…and agrees to work on a lesser pay than what was recommended by Majithia Wage Board is accepted, then it would amount to permitting the employer to pay lesser wages than the Minimum Wages…”, the single judge bench laid down in unequivocal terms that what is otherwise an offense and violative of Article 23 of the Constitution cannot be legalized under the garb of Clause 20(j).Other ObservationsInitially, the court noted that the Labour Court couldn't be faulted for not framing the issue about the declaration given by the respondent under Clause 20(j) before giving findings. The petitioner did not raise any objection to the non-framing of this issue, even though the petitioner cross-examined the respondent and led evidence about the declaration later, the cpourt reasoned.“….when a party to the suit was aware of the controversy involved in the suit and in fact it was defence taken by the Petitioner itself then non-framing of issue becomes insignificant..”, the court added.The court emphasized that the voluntary nature of the declaration given by the employee was a defense taken by the petitioner itself, and the burden to prove the same was upon the petitioner. Relying on Section 111 of the Evidence Act, as well as Section 16 of the Contract Act, the court inferred that the burden to prove the good faith of the transaction was upon the petitioner since the latter was in a position of active confidence as an employer.On the aspect of the category in which the aggrieved employee falls for the purpose of determining the pay scale according to the Board Recommendations, the court sided with the Labour Court. It held that the petitioner is covered under Section 2(f) of the 1955 Act. Section 2(f) denotes a 'working journalist' who is not employed in a managerial or administrative or supervisory capacity. The court held that the burden was upon the petitioner to prove that the employee falls under 11A (Group 3) instead as a Dy./Asst News Editor. This burden of proof was not discharged by the newspaper entity despite being in possession of the best evidence, the court pointed out.“…The nomenclature of the post will not determine the fate but the duties which were assigned to the employee will determine the lis. There is no whisper in the evidence also in this regard.”, the court reasoned.Furthermore, the petitioner had submitted that Hoshangabad is a separate division of Dainik Bhaskar. The Labour Court was wrong to include the establishment in the Class I category...

[Majithia Wage Board Recommendations] Employee's Satisfaction With Wages Not Absolute, Doesn't Preclude Them From Claiming Higher Wages: MP High Court

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sebin James

[Majithia Wage Board Recommendations] Employee's Satisfaction With Wages Not Absolute, Doesn't Preclude Them From Claiming Higher Wages: MP High Court

Sebin James

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers