AMIT TYAGIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

                                                2026:AHC:200941
                                               Reserved : 16/09/2026
                                               Delivered : 24/09/2026

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                     WRIT - C No. - 40718 of 2019

Amit Tyagi
                                                        …..Petitioner(s)

                               Versus

State of U.P. and 4 others
                                                      …..Respondent(s)


Counsel for Petitioner(s)        : Bhupendra Nath Singh, Man Mohan
                                   Singh, Pramendra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)        : C.S.C., Sandeep Pandey, Sudeep
                                   Harkauli, Sunil Tripathi


Court No. - 36

             HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1.    The petitioner is an employee of respondent-4 Amar Ujala
Publication and is working on the post of Senior Sub Editor/Senior
Reporter since 01.04.2007.

2.    Present case is arising out of implementation of recommendations
of Majithia Wage Board (for short “Wage Board”) and various
orders/judgments passed by the Supreme Court in Abhishek Raja and
others vs. Sanjay Gupta, (2017) 8 SCC 435.

3.    In above background, petitioner approached State respondents that
a case be referred to Labour Court under Section 17 Recovery of money
                                             2
                                                               WRIC No. - 40718 of 2019

due from an employee of Working Journalists and other Newspaper
Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,
1955 (for short “Act of 1955”). The Deputy Labour Commissioner,
Moradabad on basis of application filed by petitioner and in view of
delegated powers granted by the Government of U.P., vide a notification
dated 12.11.2014 referred the following dispute to Labour Court for
adjudication :-

      “मै० अमर उजाला पब्लिके शंस लिमिटेड, दिल्ली रोड, मुरादाबाद का प्रतिष्ठान मजीठिया वेज
      बोर्ड की सिफारिसों और उपबन्धों के अनुसार श्रेणी पांच में आवर्त है या श्रेणी तीन में ? यदि
      श्रेणी तीन में आवर्त है तो श्रमिक अमित त्यागी पुत्र श्री पुरूषोत्तम त्यागी, सब एडीटर,
      दिनांक 11.11.2011 से दिनांक – 01.09.2016 तक किस हितलाभ/अनुतोष पाने का
      अधिकारी है।”

4.    Labour Court, U.P. at Bareilly after considering rival submissions
rejected the dispute on a ground of maintainability and jurisdiction. For
reference, relevant part of Reference is quoted below :-

      “प्रतिवादी का यह भी तर्क है कि उनके द्वारा एक प्रार्थना पत्र 25-डी न्यायालय के समक्ष
      दाखिल किया गया जो क्षेत्राधिकार के संबंध में है जिसका निस्तारण अभी तक नहीं हुआ है
      एवं जिसका निस्तारण अवार्ड पारित किये जाने से पहले करना न्यायसंगत होगा।
      धारा-17(2) वर्किंग जर्नलिस्ट अधिनियम 1955 के अंतर्गत राज्य सरकार को औद्योगिक
      विवाद संदर्भित करने का अधिकार दिया गया है एवं औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 के
      अंतर्गत औद्योगिक विवाद की परिभाषा निम्नवत है:-2(K) defines an " Industrial
      Dispute" as meaning any dispute or difference between employers
      and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between
      workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment'
      or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the
      conditions of labour, of any person.

      इस प्रकार उपरोक्त परिभाषा से स्पष्ट है कि किसी व्यक्ति द्वारा व्यक्तिगत रूप से उठाया
      गया विवाद अगर वह सेवा समाप्ति से संबंधित नहीं है तो वह औद्योगिक विवाद का चरित्र
      ग्रहण नहीं करे गा। जबतक कि उस व्यक्ति के विवाद को किसी श्रमिक यूनियन या श्रमिकों
      की उचित संख्या द्वारा समर्थित न किया जाये। प्रस्तुत विवाद वादी द्वारा व्यक्तिगत रूप से
      उठाया गया और किसी श्रमिक यूनियन का समर्थन नहीं है। ऐसी दशा में धारा-17(2) की
      परिभाषा में प्रस्तुत विवाद औद्योगिक विवाद का चरित्र ग्रहण नहीं करता है। अतः न्यायालय
      को प्रस्तुत विवाद पर अभिनिर्णय का क्षेत्राधिकार नहीं है, प्रार्थना पत्र तदनुसार निस्तारित
      किया जाता है। माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय ने वर्क मैन ऑफ मैसर्स धर्मपाल बनाम मैसर्स
      धर्मपाल प्रेमचन्द में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा उपरोक्त तथ्य को स्पष्ट किया गया है।

      Re,: 1- 1996 AIR 182 Supreme Court, Workman of M/s Dharampal
      Vs. M/s Dharampal Premchand.
                                              3
                                                                WRIC No. - 40718 of 2019

      2- 2005(104)FLR (1005)Supreme Court, J.H.Jadhar Vs. M/s Forbes
      Gokak Ltd.

      3- FLR 1993(67)587, Allahabad High Court, M/s Swedeshi Cotton
      Mills Vs. Prisiding Officer, Labour Court-III Kanpur.

      प्रस्तुत प्रार्थना पत्र के साथ प्रतिवादी द्वारा दिनांक 28-8-18 को उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार की एक
      अधिसूचना दाखिल की गयी है जिसमें यह उल्लिखित है कि मजीठिया वेजबोर्ड की
      अनुशंसाओं से उत्पन्न विवादों के प्रतितोष हेतु एक त्रिपक्षीय कमेटी बनाई गयी है जो इस
      तरह              के        विवादों       को          देखेगी।    (Notification          No.
      792/36&1/2012&881(S.T.)/96T.C. Lucknow 28 August 2012)

      अतः उपर्युक्त सम्पूर्ण विवेचन एवं पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध साक्ष्यों के आधार पर विवाद वादी
      द्वारा अनावश्यक रूप से अनुचित व अवैधानिक ढं ग से उठाया गया है जिस कारण वादी
      किसी प्रकार का कोई हितलाभ विधिक एवं गुण-दोष के आधार प्रतिवादी से पाने का
      अधिकारी नहीं है।”

5.    Aforesaid order/award is challenged before this Court by way of
present writ petition.

6.    Sri Man Mohan Singh, learned counsel for petitioner has
submitted that reasons assigned in impugned order are not legally
justified. Labour Court ought to have considered the provisions of
Section 17(1) of Act of 1955 which permits that a single employee can
approach concerned State-respondent for reference of a dispute to
Labour Court. It was not mandatory requirement that such dispute can be
referred at the instance of Union. The definition of industrial dispute is
defined u/s 2(k) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would not be applicable
in present case since it is arising out of provision of a different case i.e.
Act of 1955. He has placed reliance upon various judgments.

7.    Per contra, Sri Shakti Swaroop Nigam, learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Sri Sudeep Harkauli, learned counsel for respondent-
Publication has submitted that issue whether impugned order has
assigned legally unsustainable reasons or not does not require
consideration by this Court since Supreme Court in a recent judgment
passed in Sudhir and others vs. Head of Human Resource, Dainik
Bhaskar Group and others, 2026 SCC Online SC 1542 has held that the
State Government has no power to delegate power to refer a dispute to
                                    4
                                                  WRIC No. - 40718 of 2019

Labour Court to any Authority. It was the sole responsibility of State
Government to consider whether or not a dispute arose between
employer and employee which requires a Reference to a Labour Court
under the provisions of Act of 1955 to be adjudicated in terms of
provisions of Act of 1947 as well as learned Senior Advocate has
submitted that Act of 1955 is now repealed by Occupational Safety,
Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 w.e.f. 21.11.2025. Learned
Senior Advocate has further referred that reasons assigned in impugned
order that petitioner will not fall within the definition of working
journalist under the Act of 1955 and that he has already given
undertaking that he will not claim the benefit of Wage Board.

8.    Learned Senior Advocate for respondent-Publication has referred
following relevant paragraphs of Sudhir and others (supra) :-

      “4. Incidentally, in purported exercise of power conferred by
      Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper
      Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions
      Act, 1955 (since repealed by the Occupational Safety, Health and
      Working Conditions Code, 2020 with effect from 21st November,
      2025 by way of a notification CG-DL-E-21112025-267884 issued by
      the Ministry of Labour and Employment), the Industries, Energy
      and Labour Department, Government of Maharashtra vide
      notification dated 11th May, 2016 had delegated the power to make
      reference to the officers named therein (namely the Additional
      Commissioners of Labour and the Deputy Commissioners of
      Labour) to the relevant Labour Courts within their jurisdiction.

      5. The central question before the High Court (and also before this
      Court) was, whether Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists Act
      empowered a State Government to delegate its power to refer a
      dispute relating to the quantum of dues payable to an employee by
      his employer to a Labour Court for decision to any other authority.

      7. At this stage, it would be apposite to reproduce Section 17 of the
      Working Journalists Act. It reads as follows:

            “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 authorised by him in writing in this
            behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any
                               5
                                             WRIC No. - 40718 of 2019

      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 sub-section (1).”

********

12. For the purpose of our assessment of Section 17(2), it would be
relevant to assess the statutory scheme in its entirety.

13. Sub-section (1) of Section 17 contemplates a stage where any
sum allegedly due to the employee from the employer is claimed by
the former and the latter refuses to acknowledge its liability. If the
State Government is moved by the employee seeking recovery of
the amount due to him, the State Government has two options.
First, the State Government can satisfy itself that any amount is so
due; or, in the alternative, the State Government may specify an
authority to satisfy itself (read: specified authority) that any
amount is so due. Subject to the satisfaction being reached that any
amount is due, the State Government or the specified authority, as
the case may be, shall issue a certificate for that amount to the
Collector, whereupon the Collector shall proceed to recover that
amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.
14. What is the course of action to be adopted if the employer
disputes the claim on any ground, like quantum or even liability,
and refuses to pay? It is here that sub-section (2) of Section 17
                              6
                                            WRIC No. - 40718 of 2019

comes into play. It ordains that if any question arises as to the
amount due under the Working Journalists Act, the State
Government may, either suo motu or on an application made to
it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (since repealed by the Industrial
Relations Code, 2020, with effect from 21st November, 2025), or
under any corresponding law relating to investigation and
settlement of industrial disputes in force in the State.
15. Sub-section (3) of Section 17 deals with the post-decision stage.
The Labour Court is required by the law to forward its decision to
the State Government which made the reference and recovery of
any amount found due by the Labour Court has to be in the manner
provided in sub-section (1) of Section 17, i.e., by issuance of a
certificate to the Collector for effecting recovery in the same
manner land revenue is recovered.
16. Having read Section 17 and its requirements, we need to
understand what is unsaid and what is said.
17. First, we would read Section 17(1) as impliedly requiring the
State Government or the specified authority to put the employer on
notice prior to reaching any satisfaction as to the amount due, since
this requirement is absent in the text of sub-section (1) and must
be read into the statute to make it meaningful.
18. Secondly, the specified authority under Section 17(1) (being the
delegate) is also impliedly required to report to the State
Government that no certificate could be issued by him to the
Collector because either the sum claimed by the employee is
disputed by the employer or the liability to pay is denied.
19. Thirdly, on a comparative study of sub-sections (1) and (2) of
Section 17, what draws our immediate attention is the express
power conferred on the State Government by the legislature to
delegate its function to the specified authority in Section 17(1) and
the absence of such power of delegation in Section 17(2). The Latin
maxim unius est exclusio alterius comes to mind, which means the
express mention of one excludes the other. In the context of the
statutory provision under consideration, where the legislature has
conferred the power of delegation to the State Government for the
function required to be performed as required by sub-section (1) of
Section 17 but has chosen to remain silent for the follow-up
function, as envisaged in sub-section (2) of Section 17, the
presumption to be drawn is that the legislature did not intend the
power of delegation to be conferred on the State Government for
making a reference to the Labour Court under Section 17(2).
                               7
                                              WRIC No. - 40718 of 2019

20. Significantly, sub-section (2) of Section 17 does not even
remotely refer to power to make any reference being delegated to
the specified authority.
21. Lastly, sub-section (3) of Section 17 mandates the State
Government, which made the reference under Section 17(2), to give
effect to the decision of the Labour Court, if it is in favour of the
employee, by issuing a certificate for recovery of the amount
determined to be due in the same manner as in sub-section (1) of
Section 17. Here too, recognition is attributed to the State
Government as having the power to refer and not to the
specified authority as in sub-section (1) of Section 17.
22. On the plain language of Section 17, we have no hesitation to
hold that though the power of delegation is available to the State
Government under sub-section (1) of Section 17, such power is
unavailable under sub-section (2) of Section 17.
23. There is, to our mind, another weighty reason for concluding
that delegation of power for making a reference to the Labour Court
is not contemplated by sub-section (2) of Section 17.
24. The reason is this. In the field of administrative law, it is well-
known that an authority who is conferred power by the
Constitution or by a statute can delegate to a subordinate what
such authority is empowered to do. As in the present case, express
power of delegation is given to the State Government by sub-
section (1) of Section 17. Having dealt with the plain language of
Section 17, let us now ascertain what the statutory scheme is.
***********
***********
***********
***********

31. We are afraid, these decisions are unable to aid the appellants'
case. Telco Convoy Drivers (supra) involved a case wherein the
appropriate Government refused to refer the dispute of the
appellant trade union therein under Section 10(1) of the ID Act and
this Court held that the appropriate Government, performing an
administrative function, did not have the power to adjudicate the
dispute at the stage of referral. The central question before this
Court in Telco (supra) did not involve any delegation of power to a
third party by the appropriate Government under Section 10(1) of
the ID Act. Similarly, C.P. Sarathy (supra) did not involve any
question of delegation of power to a third party by the appropriate
Government; rather, the question before this Court in that case was
the level of detail required to be expressed on the dispute by the
                                   8
                                                 WRIC No. - 40718 of 2019

     appropriate Government while making a reference under Section
     10(1) of the ID Act. Finally, in Sidhartha Sarawgi (supra), certain
     leases were terminated pursuant to ejectment notices which were
     signed by the Land Manager of Kolkata Port Trust. Challenging
     these ejectment notices, the appellants therein argued that such
     ejectment notices were illegal and could not be issued by the Land
     Manager. Any steps for ejectment had to be made by the Chairman
     of the Kolkata Port Trust. Rejecting this contention of the
     appellants, this Court observed that the ultimate power to
     terminate leases had been vested in the Chairman by virtue of a
     resolution passed by the Board of Kolkata Port Trust pursuant to
     Section 21 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 and that while the
     Chairman had taken the ultimate decision to terminate the leases in
     question, the Land Manager had only been authorized to implement
     the said decision of the Chairman. In the present instance, Section
     17(2) contemplates that the ultimate decision to refer the dispute
     to the Labour Court is taken by the State Government alone. The
     Notification of the GoM does not merely vest powers of
     implementation on the specified authorities, rather, it vests the
     ultimate decision making authority in regard to making a reference
     to the specified authorities and completely takes away the statutory
     duty of the State Government under Section 17(2) to refer the
     dispute. The cases before us do not involve the specified authorities
     acting as mere implementing agencies of the State Government.

     32. We are, thus, of the considered opinion that the GoM fell in
     grave error in delegating power to the specified authorities to make
     reference under sub-section (2) of Section 17 to the Labour Court.
     While we do not approve the decision of the Allahabad High Court
     in Pradhan Prabandhak/Unit Head Amar Ujala v. State of Uttar
     Pradesh taking a contrary view, we affirm the judgments of the High
     Court under challenge in these appeals as well as the decision of the
     Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Jagran Parkashan
     Limited v. State of Punjab.
     33. Resting on the aforesaid conclusion, dismissal of the appeals
     should be the obvious outcome. However, having regard to the
     lapse of time since the Notification was issued and the
     developments subsequent thereto, we do not think it to be proper
     to put the parties back to square one particularly when the Working
     Journalists Act stands repealed with effect from 21st November,
     2025 by the OSH Code, and the question of making new references
     under Section 17(2) would, thus, not arise in future.”

9.   Learned Senior Advocate for respondent-Publication has also
submitted that in said judgment, some directions were passed under
                                     9
                                                    WRIC No. - 40718 of 2019

Article 142 of Constitution by the Supreme Court and referred following
paragraphs :-

      “37. Bearing this in mind, we direct that the impugned judgments
      of the Nagpur and Aurangabad Benches of the High Court shall
      neither bring about a termination of the proceedings referred to the
      respective Labour Courts by the relevant specified authority or the
      proceedings which were dealt with by the High Court, nor shall the
      proceedings which are pending before the Labour Courts terminate
      by reason of our judgment.

      38. In exercise of the power conferred on this Court by
      Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we further direct that the
      GoM in the appropriate department shall revisit all references
      made to the Labour Courts by the respective specified authorities.
      Upon an independent exercise being undertaken in each case and
      uninfluenced by the satisfaction reached by the specified
      authorities, the GoM shall be under an obligation to record fresh
      satisfaction that there existed a dispute as to amount due which
      was worthy of being referred. In those cases where satisfaction is
      reached, a fresh reference shall be made by the GoM outlining the
      terms for the same to be decided in accordance with law. The
      proceedings shall, however, be taken forward from the stage the
      Labour Courts have reached. If further evidence is required to be
      led by any of the parties consequent upon the fresh reference, the
      Labour Court shall offer an opportunity to the party seeking to lead
      further evidence and likewise, allow the opposite party to lead
      evidence in defence.

      39. Even in those cases where the Labour Courts have passed
      awards acting in furtherance of references made by the specified
      authorities and such awards are under challenge before the High
      Court, the GoM has to certify that it is satisfied that the dispute was
      rightly referred. In such case, the correctness and/or legality of the
      awards which are under challenge before any bench of the High
      Court may be examined on its own merits.

      40. Since the cluster of writ petitions referred to in paragraph 3
      (supra) read with the relevant footnote, from which the lead appeal
      arises, has been disposed of by the High Court, the GoM will record
      its satisfaction in each such case and wherever it is certified that
      there was a dispute as to amount due which was required to be
      referred to the Labour Court, the parties in such writ petitions shall
      be at liberty to approach the High Court with an application for
      recall of the orders of disposal and for restoration thereof. Once
                                    10
                                                   WRIC No. - 40718 of 2019

      such approach is made, we have no doubt that the High Court will
      restore the writ petitions and hear the same on its own merits.

      41. In those cases where the GoM reaches a satisfaction that
      reference should not have been made at all, it shall record
      accordingly and communicate its decision to the employee
      concerned. In such a situation, the employee may seek recovery of
      any amount allegedly due to him through other available process of
      recovery, with limitation commencing from the date of receipt of
      the order of the GoM.

      42. This judgment shall, however, not permit employers to reopen
      proceedings already concluded on the basis of references made by
      the specified authorities in terms of the Notification, if in further
      proceedings before a higher court the validity of such reference has
      not been challenged.

      43. We make it abundantly clear that merits of the rival claims with
      regard to any amount due or payable have not been examined and
      the parties are free to raise all points that are available in law for
      being decided by the relevant courts.

      44. The GoM is directed to implement this order of revisiting
      references as early as possible but not later than 6 (six) months
      from the date of its communication to it. Till such time the GoM
      takes a decision in respect of each dispute and communicates the
      same to the parties as well as the Labour Court, the proceedings
      pending either before the Labour Court or before the High Court
      shall not proceed. Needless to observe, continuance of further
      proceedings shall be dependent on the decisions taken by the GoM.

      45. We also make it clear that if any proceeding before the Labour
      Court has been closed relying upon the impugned judgments and
      such closure is not under challenge, the proceedings will be re-
      opened if the GoM refers the dispute to such Labour Court in terms
      of this order.

      46. On the aforesaid terms, the civil appeals stand disposed of.”

10.   In rejoinder, learned counsel for petitioner has not able to deny
much about present position of law, however, he has further submitted
that petitioner may not be left with remedy-less and this Court may pass
orders in the light of Sudhir and others (supra) which has already been
referred in preceding paragraphs.
                                   11
                                                 WRIC No. - 40718 of 2019

11.   Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records.

12.   The argument of learned counsel for petitioner that reasons
assigned in impugned order are not legally justified has substance since
in the impugned order, the Labour Court has only considered the
provisions of Act of 1947 without considering real purport of provisions
of Act of 1955 that even an individual workman can ask the concerned
State Government to refer a dispute to Labour Court, however, as rightly
pointed out by learned Senior Advocate for respondents that even such
reasons are not justified but now in view of Sudhir and others (supra),
once the Supreme Court has held that State has no power to delegate
power to refer a dispute by Deputy Labour Commissioner under Act of
1955 and since in present case also, the dispute was referred by Deputy
Labour Commissioner, therefore, Reference itself is bad in law,
therefore, no proceedings can be initiated on basis of a Reference made
in present case as well as that in present case, no further proceedings
were initiated after Reference was made since by the impugned order,
Reference was declared bad in law though for different reasons.

13.   In above background, Court is of view that petitioner cannot be
left remedy less and, therefore, takes note of directions passed by
Supreme Court in Sudhir and others (supra) under Article 142 and
specifically directions made in paragraph 44 and 45 which is again
quoted below and this writ petition can be disposed of without
interfering with impugned order by passing following directions :-

      “44. The GoM is directed to implement this order of revisiting
      references as early as possible but not later than 6 (six) months
      from the date of its communication to it. Till such time the GoM
      takes a decision in respect of each dispute and communicates the
      same to the parties as well as the Labour Court, the proceedings
      pending either before the Labour Court or before the High Court
      shall not proceed. Needless to observe, continuance of further
      proceedings shall be dependent on the decisions taken by the GoM.

      45. We also make it clear that if any proceeding before the Labour
      Court has been closed relying upon the impugned judgments and
      such closure is not under challenge, the proceedings will be re-
                                                                    12
                                                                                  WRIC No. - 40718 of 2019

                                        opened if the GoM refers the dispute to such Labour Court in terms
                                        of this order.”

                            14.         In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of with following
                            observations/directions :-

                                        (a) Appropriate Authority under State Government shall take a
                                        conscious decision in the light of above referred paragraphs 44
                                        and 45 of Sudhir and others (supra) which is also mentioned
                                        hereinabove whether or not a Reference be made under
                                        provisions of Act of 1955.

                                        (b) While making Reference, State Government can also take
                                        note whether or not in given circumstances, recommendations
                                        under Wage Board were applicable to petitioner or not that he
                                        has already taken benefit or has made a declaration not to take
                                        benefits of recommendations of Wage Board as well as
                                        whether petitioner would fall under the definition of working
                                        journalist, if circumstance so warrant and without being much
                                        influenced of the observations made in the impugned order.




                                                                 (SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.)

                            September 24, 2026
                            <Nirmal>




Digitally signed by :-
NIRMAL SINHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad