Supreme Court of India
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2014 INSC 82
- Decided
- 7 February 2014
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- P SATHASIVAM
Holding
The Working Journalists Act and its amendment are constitutionally valid, the Wage Boards were properly constituted and procedurally sound, and their wage recommendations are lawful.
Summary
The petitioners, a consortium of newspaper management firms, challenged the constitutionality of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 and its 1974 amendment, alleging violations of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, as well as procedural irregularities in the Majithia Wage Boards that fixed revised wages. The Court examined the earlier Constitution Bench decision in Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. which upheld the Act as intra vires and applied the same reasoning to reject the petitioners' claims of arbitrary classification and infringement of fundamental rights. It also held that the composition of the Wage Boards, including former government officials, satisfied the statutory requirement of independence and that the Boards had complied with principles of natural justice, providing ample opportunity for representation. The Court found the methodology of the Wage Boards, including the use of gross revenue to assess capacity to pay, to be reasonable and within the legislative intent. Consequently, the Court dismissed all writ petitions, upheld the validity of the Act and its amendment, and confirmed the legality of the Wage Boards' recommendations.
Issues considered
- The constitutionality of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 and its 1974 amendment vis‑à‑vis Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
- Whether the composition of the Majithia Wage Boards violated the requirement of independence and was biased against the petitioners.
- Whether the procedure adopted by the Wage Boards, including the issuance of questionnaires and classification of establishments, was irregular or violative of natural justice.
- Whether the Wage Boards overlooked relevant aspects, such as capacity to pay, and considered extraneous factors in fixing wages.
- Whether the Central Government’s acceptance of the Wage Boards’ recommendations was lawful and whether any modification altered the character of the recommendations.
Legislation cited
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
- Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955s. 10(1), s. 10(2), s. 11(1), s. 12, s. 13-C, s. 9
- Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 1974
Subjects
Constitutional validityFundamental rightsArticle 14Article 19(1)(a)Article 19(1)(g)Wage BoardWorking journalistsNewspaper employeesProcedural fairnessBiasCapacity to payVariable payClassification of establishmentsAmendment Act 1974
Judgment
[2014) 2 S.C.R. 393
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 246 of 2011 etc.)
FEBRUARY 07, 2014
B
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJAN GOGOi AND SHIVA
KIRTI SINGH, JJ.)
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950:
c
Arls. 14, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) - Constitutional validity of
Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees
(Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,
1955 and Amendment Act of 1974 - Held: In Express
Newspaper, the Constitution Bench has held the 1955 Act as
0
intra vires the Constitution - The Act being a beneficent
legislation intended to regulate conditions of service of working
journalists does not have the effect of taking away or abridging
the freedom of speech and expression of petitioners-
newspapers and does not, therefore, infringe Arl. 19(1)(a) of
the Constitution - Nor could it be held to be violative of Arl. E
19(1 )(g) of the Constitution in view of the test of
reasonableness - Challenge as to the singling out of
newspaper industry per se was rejected by the Constitution
Bench holding it to be a class by itself- The 1974 amendment
Act brought the other employees of newspaper industry (i.e. F
non-working journalists) into the ambit of the Act and extended
the benefits of the Act to them - Thus, the same is also covered
as per the reasoning of the Constitution Bench decision -
Mere passage of time by itself would not result in invalidation
of the Act and its object -- Challenge as to the vires of the Act G
on the premise of it being ultra vires the Constitution and
violative of fundamental rights is wholly unfounded, baseless
and completely untenable.
393 H
394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A WORKING JOURNALISTS AND OTHER
NEWSPAPER EMPLOYEES (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE)
AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1955:
ss. 9 and 13-C - Government of India Notification dated
11. 11. 2011 notifying the recommenda.tions of Justice Majithia
B
Wage Boards - Held: As regards constitution of Wage Boards,
merely because a person had been in the employment of the
Government, he does not cease to become "independent" for
the purposes of being a member of the Committee to
recommend the fixing of wages - AL-gation of bias against
C independent members of Wage Boards, being based merely
on their past status, is entirely baseless in law and amounts
to imputing motives - Administrative law - Legal bias.
ss. 9 and 13 - Composition of Wage Boards - Held: To
o have common representatives of the employers on the two
Wage Boards, four independent members, including the
Chairman being common for both the Wage Boards, and
separate set of members representing working journalists and
members representing non-journalist newspaper employees
E in no way affects the interest of the employers and the
challenge of the petitioners in this regard is unfounded.
s.11(1) r/w s.10(1) - Procedure followed by Wage Boards
- Held: Wage Board has special powers to regulate its own
procedure -- As long as it follows the principles of natural
F justice and fairness, its functioning cannot be called into
question on the ground of irregularity in the procedure - In the
instant case, detailed questionnaires were issued to
newspaper establishments, notices inviting representations
were published in 125 newspapers -- Wage Boards
G conducted a series of meetings and gave ample opportunities
to the employers to make their point of view known to the
Board by written and oral representatioRs-=- Court is satisfied
that the decision making process stands valid - The.
petitioners, having eluded to submit the data, cannot be
H allowed to take advantage of their own wrong and impugn the
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 395
recommendations of Wage Boards - Further, no prejudice is A
caused to employers by classifying them in eight categories
on the basis of gross tum over - There is no irregularity in the
procedure adopted by Wage Boards.
s. 10(2) and 12 - Recommendations of Wage Boards and 8
its acceptance by Central Government - Held: capacity of
newspaper industry to pay is one of the essential
circumstances to be taken into consideration while fixing rates
of wages under the Act - Comprehensive and detailed study
has been carried out by Wage Boards by collecting all relevant C
materials for the purpose of wage revision -
Recommendations are arrived at after weighing the pros and
cons of various methods in the process and principles of wage
revision in modern era - It cannot be held that the wage
structure recommended by Majithia Wage Boards is
unreasonable - As regards the issue of wages for News · D
Agencies to be fixed separately and independently, in view
of limited jurisdiction to look into this aspect, it would be
inapposite for the Court to question the decision of specialized
board on merits especially when the Board was constituted
for this sole purpose - Besides, it is the prerogative of Central E
- Government to accept or reject the recommendations of Wage
Boards - There is no scope for hearing the oarties once again
by Central Government while accepting or modifying the
recommendations, except that modifications are of such
nature which alter the character of the recommendations and F
such modification is likely to affect the parties -
Recommendations of Majithia Wage Boards are valid in law
and there is no valid ground for interference under Art.32 of
the Constitution.
G
Implementation of recommendations of Wage Boards -
Held: Wages as revised/determined shall be payable from
11.11.2011, when Government of India notified the
recommendations of the Majithia Wage Boards, and as
directed· in the judgment.
H
396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A The Government of India, constituted two Boards on
24.5.2007, one for the Working Journalists and the other
for non-Journalist Newspaper and News Agencies
employees u/ss 9 and 13-C of the Working Journalists
and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service)
B and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (the Act). The
Chairman and six of the remaining nine members were
common to both the Wage Boards. The remaining three
members each representing the Working Journalists and
non-Journalist Newspaper employees had been
c nominated by their respective Unions. Justice Gurbax
Rai Majithia, a retired Judge of the High Court of Mumbai,
took over the charge as Chairman of the two Boards on
04.03.2009. The recommendations submitted by
Majithithia Wage Boards, were accepted by the Central
Government and notified on 11.11.2011. The petitioners
0
(management of various newspapers) filed the instant
writ petitions, challenging and praying for quashing of
the notification dated 11.11.2011 on the grounds: (i)
improper Constitution of the Wage Boards; (ii) irregularity·
in the procedure adopted by Wage Boards; and (iii) Wage
E Boards overlooked the relevant aspects and considered
extraneous factors while drafting the recomm.endations.
Constitutional validity of the Act was also challenged on
twin grounds: Firstly, the Act infringed the fundamental
rights guaranteed under Arts. 14 and 19 of the
F Constitution; and secondly, the Act had become obsolete
with the passage of time. The petitioners also challenged
the vires of the Amendment Act, 1974 on the ground that
extending the benefit of the Act to employees other than
working journalists was against the object that was
G sought to be achieved by the original Act since the
benefits to other newspaper employees had no rational
nexus between the differentia and the object sought to
be achieved.
H Dismissing the petitions, the Court
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 397
HELD: A
Constitutional validity of the Act:
1.1 In Express Newspaper (P) Ltd.* a Constitution
Bench of this Court has held the 1955 Act to be intra vires
the Constitution; and the challenge to the Act as being 8
violative of Arts. 19(1) (a), 19(1) (g) and Art. 14 was held
unsustainable. It has been held that the impugned Act,
judged by its provisions, being a beneficent legislation
intended to regulate the conditions of service of the
working journalists does not have the effect of taking C
away or abridging the freedom of speech and expression
of the petitioners and does not, therefore, infringe Art.
19(1 )(a) of the Constitution. Nor could it be held to be
violative of Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution in view of the
test of reasonableness laid down by this Court. D
Challenge as to the singling out of the newspaper
industry per se was rejected by the Constitution Bench
and the newspaper industry was held to be a class by
itself. [para 17-19 and 21] [419-F; 422-C, E-H; 423-A-C;
431-F-G] E
*Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India 1959
SCR 12 =AIR 1958 SC 578 -- relied on.
Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd. vs. Union of India
2004 (2) SCR 1098 = (2004) 11 SCC 526 - referred to. F
John Val/amattom vs. Union of India 2003 (1) Suppl.
SCR 638 = (2003) 6 SCC 611; Malpe Vishwanath Acharya
vs. State of Maharashtra 1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 717 = (1998)
2 SCC 1; and Indian Handicrafts Emporium vs. Union of G
India 2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 43 = (2003) 7 SCC 589 - cited.
Challenge qua Amendment Act, 1974
1.2 The 1974 amendment Act brought the other
employees of the newspaper industry (i.e. non-working H
398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 2 S.C.R.
A journalists) into the ambit of the Act and extended the
benefits of the Act to them. Thus, the same is also
covered as per the reasoning of the Constitution Bench
decision of this Court. Therefore, the challenge as to the
Amendment Act, 1974 stands disallowed. [para 21] [431-
B G-H]
1.3 The realm of Art. 14 of the Constitution is to be
appreciated in the light of the interest of both employers
and the employees. This Court is opting for not to
interfere for two reasons: firstly, the petitioners cannot
C espouse the grievance of those employees working in
the electronic media for non-inclusion and, more
particularly, when those employees are not before this .
Court. Secondly, the fact that similar benefits are not
extended to the employees of other similar industry will
D not result in invalidation of benefit given to the employees
of press industry. Recalling that media industry is still an
upcoming sector unlike the press industry, the scope for
potential policies in future cannot be overruled. [para 23-
24] [432-G; 433-A-C]
E· 1.4 It is true that newspaper industry, with the advent.
of electronic media, continues to face greater challenges
similar to the ones as observed by the Press Commission
and noted in the Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. Thus, the
contention of the petitioners that though the newspaper
F industry may be growing, the growth of the electronic
media is relatively exponential, in fact, substantiates the
very necessity of why a wage board for working
journalists and other newspaper employees of the
newspaper industry should exist. [para 29] [434-E-F]
G 1.5 As regards the second ground of challenge, i.e.,
the Act over the passage of time has outlived its utility, it
is cogent opinion of this Court that mere passage of time
by itself would not result in the invalidation of the Act and
its object. The validity once having been upheld by the
H Constitution Bench of this Court in Express Newspapers
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 399
(P) Ltd., the same cannot be again challenged on the A
ground alleed. [para 25] [433-D-E]
Motor General Traders vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1984
(1) SCR 594 = (1984) 1 SCC 222 and Ratan Arya vs. State
of Tamil Nadu 1986 (2) SCR 596 = (1986) 3 SCC 385 - held
B
inapplicable.
1.6 This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the
challenge as to the vires of the Act on the premise of it
being ultra vires the Constitution and violative of
fundamental rights is wholly unfounded, baseless and C
completely untenable. [para 28] [434-D]
Constitution of the Wage Boards:
2.1 The Wage Boards constituted ulss 9 and 13C of
the Act are required to be comprised of 1O members i.e. Di
one Chairman, three independent members, three
representatives for employers and three representatives
for employees. As regards the petitioners' main ground of
challenge to appointment as Member-Secretary of the
_ Wage Board, of the former Secretary of Ministry of Labour E
and Employment, Government of India on the ground of
his independence, suffice it to say that merely because a
person had been in the employment of the Government,
he does not cease to become "independ~nt" for the
purposes of being a member of the Committee to F
recommend the fixing of wages. This Court is satisfied that
the said official was an independent member of the Board
and cannot be considered to be "biased" in any manner.
[para 30, 31and 33] [434-G-H; 435-C-D, E-F; 437-C]
State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Narayana Velur Beedi G
=
Manufacturing Factory 1973 (3) SCR 755 (1973) 4 SCC 178
-- relied on.
2.2 The petitioners' allegations against another
member, who was an experienced journalist and had H
400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A been associated with various journalistic institutions in
his long journalistic career, are only vague and general
aHegations and no specific allegation that he acted in a
manner that was biased against the employers has been
leveled by the petitioners. It is well-settled that mere
8 apprehension of bias is not enough and there must be
cogent evidence available on record to come to the
conclusion. [para 34-35] [437-D, E-F]
Kumaon Manda/ Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. Girja Shankar
Pant 2000 (4) Suppl. SCR 248 = (2001) 1 SCC 182; and
C State of Punjab vs. V.K. Khanna 2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 200 =
(2001) 2 sec 330 - referred to.
2.3 The petitioners' allegation of bias against
independent members of the Wage Boards, being based
merely on their past status, is entirely baseless in law and
D amounts to imputing motives. Further, the petitioners
have nowhere established or even averred that the
independent members are guilty of legal bias. [para 37]
[438-E]
E Perspective Publications vs. State of Maharashtra (1969)
2 SCR 779 relied on.
2.4 Besides, the petitioners had challenged the
constitution of the Wage Board before the High Court of
Delhi which had declined to grant interim relief. The said
F order attained finality as the petitioners did not choose
to challenge it before this Court. Thereafter, the
petitioners having participated in the proceedings and
acquiesced themselves with the proceedings of the
Board, they cannot be allowed to challenge the same at
G this stage after the recommendations by the Wage
Boards had been notified by the Central Government.
[para 38] [438-G-H; 439-A-B]
2.5 On perusal of the materials available, this Court
is satisfied that the Wage Boards have functioned in a
H fully balanced manner. [para 38] [438-F-G]
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 401
2.6 With regard to the petitioners contention that two A
separate Wage Boards ought to have been constituted
instead of a common wage board, it is significant to note
that the Financial Memorandum accompanying the
Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and
Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Bill, 1974 B
specifically states that "the intention is to constitute
Wage Boards under s. 9 and proposed s. 13C as far as
possible at the same time and to have a common
Chairman and a common Secretariat for both the
Boards", and accordingly, Palekar Tribunal (1980), c
Bachawat Wage Board (1989) and Manisana Wage Board
(2000) constituted after 1974 amendment were all
common Boards/Tribunal for both working journalists
and non-journalists. Though the members representing
the employers were common, they were not incapacitated D
in any manner. They had two votes as they represented
the employers in both the Boards. To have common
representatives of the employers on the two Wage
Boards is expected to be favorable to the employers as
.·they can make a fair assessment of the requirements of
the working journalists and non-journalist newspaper
E
employees of the newspaper industry as a whole. [para
40-41] [439-E-H; 440~B]
2. 7 However, as the two Wage Boards have separate
entities meant for working journalists and non-journalist F
newspaper employees, there cannot be common
representatives who can protect the interest and represent
working journalists as well as non-journalist newspaper
employees. Therefore, members representing working
journalists were nominated to the Wage Board for the G
working journalists. Similarly, members representing non-
journalist newspaper employees were nominated to the
Wage Board for non-journalist newspaper employees. For
administrative convenience, four independent members,
including the Chairman were common for both the Wage H
402. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R. -
A Boards. In the cogent view of this Court, this arrangement
in no way affects the interest of the employers and the
challenge of the petitioners in this regard is unfounded.
[para 41] [440-C-E]
Procedure followed by Majithia Wage Boards:
8
3.1 Under s. 11 (1) of the Act, Wage Board has special
powers to regulate its own procedure. It is not obligatory
for the Wage Board to follow the exact procedure of the
earlier Wage Boards and as such there is no requirement
C in law to follow a strictly laid down procedure in its
functioning. Besides, as long as it follows the principles
of natural justice and fairness, its functioning cannot be
called into question on the ground of irregularity in the
procedure. [para 43] [441-D-E]
D
3.2 A detailed questionnaire was issued to
newspaper establishments on 24.07.2007. Several
attempts were made by the Wage Boards to get the
relevant information from the employers but many of the
._E petitioners did not give financial data; they abstained
from attending the Board's proceedings. Regular follow·
up with the employers was made and series of letters
were issued to collect financial information. Apart from
the questionnaire, notices inviting representation as per
F s. 10(1) of the Act were published in 125 newspapers.
Further, on 05.07.2010, summons were issued to around
one hundred and forty stake holders and they were given
final chance to submit the information. In addition to this,
a two page simplified questionnaire was also issued on
02.03.2010. Thus, the procedure adopted by the Wage
G Boards did, in fact, give ample opportunities to the
stakeholders to submit representations and financial
data. However, many of the petitioners have never
bothered to attend the proceedings of the Wage Board
and did not submit financial data. It was only upon much
H effort and repeated requests that the data in respect of
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 403
66 establishments could be collected and out of this, the A
data of only 40 establishments was found useful by the
Wage Board. Besides, these 40 establishments are
representatives of the different class of newspaper
establishments that are carrying on business in the
country and in addition detailed submissions by B
representative groups such as the Indian Newspaper
Society (INS) were also considered. Thus, it can certainly
be construed that these representative bodies presented
an overview of the whole newspaper industry, apart from
the information collected from the individual c
establishments. [para 44-46 and 48] [441-F; 442-A, B-D,
F-H; 443-A; 445-D-E]
3.3 It is evident that the Wage Boards conducted a
series of meetings and gave ample opportunities to the
employers. The employers were given opportunity of D
both written and oral representations to make theii-. point
of view known to the Board and consequently, this ;Court
is satisfied that the decision making process stands
valid. The petitioners, having eluded to submit the data,
cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong E
and impugn the recommendations of the Wage Board~.
· Further, no prejudice is caused to employers by
classifying them in eight categories on the basis of gross
turnover. [para 50 and 51] [449-B-C, F; 450-B]
F
3.4 After having exhaustively gone through the
record of proceeding.s and various written
communications, this Court is fully satisfied that the
Wage Boards proceedings have been conducted and
carried out in a legitimate approach and no decision of G
the Wage Board is perceived to having been taken
unilaterally or arbitrarily. Rather all decisions have been
reached in a coherent manner in the presence of all the
members of Wage Board after having processed various
statistics and there is no irregularity in the procedure
H
404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A adopted by the Wage Boards. [para 53]
Majithia Wage Boards did not overlook the relevant
aspects nor did it consider extraneous factors while
drafting the recommendations: [450-H; 451-A-C]
B 4.1 In Express Newspaper (P) Ltd, this Court has held
that the capacity of the newspaper industry to pay is one
of the essential circumstances to be taken into
consideration while fixing rates of wages under the Act.
Consequently, s. 10(2) of the Act was inserted which
C gives the statutory recognition to the requirement of
taking into consideration the capacity of the employer to
pay. [para 55] [451-E, G]
4.2 Chapter XIV, titled Capacity to pay of the
D Newspaper industry (A Financial Assessment) of the
Justice Majithia Report, elaborately discusses on the
aspect of capacity to pay. After perusing the relevant
documents, this Court is satisfied that comprehensive
and detailed study has been carried out by the Wage
E Board by collecting all the relevant material information
for the purpose of the wage revision. The
recommendations are arrived at after weighing the pros
and cons of various methods in the process and
principles of the wage revision in the modern era. It
cannot be held that the wage structure recommended by
F the Majithia Wage Board is unreasonable. [para 56 and
59] [451-G-H; 453-E-F]
5.1 As regards the issue of wages for News Agencies
to be fixed separately and independently, suffice it to say
G that this Court has a limited jurisdiction to look into this
aspect. Interference is allowed to a limited extent to
examine the question as to whether the Wage Board has
considered the capacity of the News Agencies to pay. It
would be inapposite for this Court tC' question the
H decision of the specialized board on merits especially
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 405
when the Board was constituted for this sole purpose. A
[para 60 and 62] [453-H; 454-C-D]
5.2 Regarding variable pay recommended by the
Majithia Wage Board, it categorized "basic pay" and
"variable pay" separately. The concept of "variable pay"
is not newly introduced. The Wage Boards have followed B
well-settled norms while making recommendations about
variable pay. Further, the explanation to s. 2(eee) which
defines "wages", specifically includes within the term
"wages" "new allowances", if any, of any description
fixed from time to time. Therefore, the Wage Board was c
•well within its jurisdiction to recommend payment of
'variable pay'. The concept of 'variable pay' contained in
the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay
Commission has been incorporated into the Wage Board
recommendations only to ensure that the wages of the
newspaper employees are at par with those employees 0
working in other Government sectors. Such
incorporation was made by the Majithia Wage Board after
careful consideration, in order to ensure equitable
treatment to employees of newspaper establishments,
· and it was well within its rights to do so. [para 63-65] [454- E
E; 455-C-D, F-G]
5.3 As regards the Wage Board recommendations to
grant of 100% neutralization of dearness allowance and
categorization of HRA and Transport Allowance into X,
Y and Z category regions, this Court is satisfied that the F
Wage Boards followed certain well laid down principles
and norms while making recommendations. [para 67]
[456-B-C, D]
5.4 Section 12 of the Act deals with the powers of
Central Government to enforce recommendations of the G
Wage Board. It is the prerogative of the Central
Government to accept o~ reject the recommendations of
the Wage Boards. There is no scope for hearing the
parties once again by the Central Government while
accepting or modifying the recommendations, except H
406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 2 S.C.R.
A that the modifications are of such nature which alter the
character of the recommendations and such modification
is likely to affect the parties. The mere fact that the
Government has not accepted a few recommendations
will not automatically affect the validity of the entire
B report. [para 69-70] [456-H; 457-A; 458-A-C]
6. This Court holds that the recommendations of the
Wage Boards are valid in law, based on genuine and
acceptable considerations and there is no valid ground
for interference under Art. 32 of the Constitution. The
C wages as revised/determined shall be payable from
11.11.2011, when the Government of India notified the
recommendations of the Majithia Wage Boards, and as
directed in the judgment. [para 71 and 73] [458-D-E, F]
D Case Law Reference:
1959 SCR 12 relied on para 14
2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 638 cited para 15
1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 717 cited para 15
E 2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 43 cited para 15
2004 (2) SCR 1098 referred to para 20
1984 (1) SCR 594 held inapplicable Para 25
1986 (2) SCR 596 held inapplicable Para 25
F
1973 (3) SCR 755 relied on para 32
2000 (4) Suppl. SCR 248 referred to Para 35
2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 200 relied on para 37
G (1969) 2 SCR 779 relied on para 37
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : UNDER ARTICLE 32
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 246 of 2011.
H
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF !NOIA & ORS. 407
WITH A
W.P. (Civil) No. 382, 384, 386, 408, 510, 538, 514, 546 of
2011, 87 of 2012, 264, 315 of 2012,817 of 2013.
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 252 of 2012 in W.P. (C) No. 538
of 2011. B
Mohan Prasaran, S.G., Anil B. Divan, K.K. Venugopal,
Aman Lekhi, P.P. Rao, S.S. Ramdas, Bijendra Chahar and
Colin Gonzalves, Jayant Kumar Mehta, Ms. Neelima Tripathi,
Sukant Vikram, G.V.S. Jagannadha Rao, Anuj Kapoor, Gopal
Jain, R.N. Karanjawala, Manik Karanjawala, Nandini Gore, Aditi C
Bhatt, Neha Khandelwal, Avijit Deb, Kaushik Laik, Tahira
Karanjawala (for Karanjawala & Co.), Akil Sibal, Trishala
Kulkarni, Oebmalya Banerjee, Dilpreet Singh, Kartik Bhatnagar,
Jatin Mongia, Rohit Bhatt (for Karanjawala & Co.), K. Datta,
Manish Srivastava, Atul Singh, Ashish Verma, Rahul Malhotra,
Abhay Kumar, Diggaj Pathak, Parijat Kishore, Shanta Kumar D
V. Mahale, Pradeep Sawkar, Harish S.R. Hebbar, Rajesh
Mahale, Ajay Choudhary, Ankit R.Kothari, Ajay Singh, Sunil
Dogra, Aditya Verma, S. Lakshmi, Rohit Bhat, Hari Shankar
K., Nachiket Joshi, Anil Shrivastav, Manoj Goel, Shuvodeep
Roy, Birender Kr. Mishra, Shyam Lal, Abhinav Singh, Alok K. E
Prasad, Poonam Atey, Vishwanath Bahuguna, P.1. Jose, Gopal
Jain, Anuj Dhir, Ranjit Raut, Kaushik Laik, Bina Gupta, B.K. Pal,
E.C. Agrawala, D.L. Chidanand, Sukhbeer Kaur Bajwa, Ashwin
Kumar D.S., Aditi Anil Dani, Yasir Rauf, Shreekant N. Terdal,
Juno Rahman, Jyoti Mendiratta, Parmanand Pandey, E. Gopal,
Raj Kisor Choudhary, Pamarty Venkataramana, Ajay Kumar F
Jain, Pranav Ranjan, Praneet Ranjan, Hari Shankar K., B.K. Pal,
Thampan Thomas, N.M. Varghese, Tessy Varghese, K.V.
Mohan for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
P. SATHASIVAM, CJI. 1. These writ petitions, under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India, have been filed by the
petitioners (management of various newspapers) praying for
a declaration that the Working Journalists and Other
Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and H
408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act') is ultra
vires as it infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed under
Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
The petitioners further prayed for quashing of the notification
dated 11.11.2011 issued by the Central Government accepting
B the recommendations made by Justice Majithia Wage Boards
for Working Journalists and Non-Journalist Newspaper and
News Agency Employees.
Factual Background:
2. It is pertinent to give a vivid background of the case
C before we advent to decide the issue at hand. Way back in
1955, the Government of India enacted the impugned Act to
regulate the conditions of service of Working Journalists and
in 1974 via amendment for other Newspaper Employees
employed in newspaper establishments. For the purpose of
0 fixing or revising the rates of wages of employees in newspaper
establishments, the Central Government is empowered under
Sections 9 and 13C of the Act to constitute two Wage Boards,
viz., one for the working journalists and otherfor non-journalist
newspaper employees respectively. Likewise, the Act also
specifies that the Central Government shall, as and when
E necessary, constitute these Wage Boards. The composition of
the Wage Boards is specified, as mentioned below:-
(a) Three persons representing employers in relation to ·
Newspaper Establishments;
F (b) Three persons representing working journalists for
Wage Board under Section 9 and three persons
representing non-journalist Newspaper Employees for
Wage Board under Section 13C of the Act;
(c) Four independent persons, one of whom shall be a
G person who is, or has been a Judge of the High Court or
the Supreme Court, and who shall be appointed by the
Government as the Chairman thereof.
3. It is relevant to note that since 1955, six Wage Boards
have been constituted for working journalists and four Wage
H Boards for non-journalist newspaper employees in order to fix
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 409
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
or revise the rates of wages. The relevant details of the A
preceding Wage Boards are as under:-
(i) Divatia Wage Board
Date of Date of Challenge
'Appointment Acceptance B
02.05.1956 10.05.1957 In Express Newspaper (P)
Ltd. vs. Union of India 1959
SCR 12 the decision of the
Divatia Wage Board as well c
as the constitutional validity of
the. Act was challenged
before this Court. This Court
set aside the decision of the
Wage Board dt. 30.04.1957 D
on the ground that it did not
take into account the capacity
of the industry to pay. As a
result of this decision, an
ordinance dated 14.06.1958 E
was promulgated which
provided for the
establishment of a Special
Committee for making
recommendations to the
F
Central Government in regard
to the rates of wages to be
fixed for working journalists.
Later, in September 1958,
the Working Journalists
(Fixation of Rates of Wages) G
Act, 1958 was passed by the
Parliament.
H
410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 2 S.C.R.
A (ii) Shinde Wage Board
Date of Date of Challenge
Appointment Acceptance
12.11.1963/ 27.10.1967 In Press Trust of India vs.
Union of India & Ors. (1974)
B 4 SCC 638, this COlJrt struck
down the recommendations of
the second Wage Board
insofar as PTI was concerned
as unreasonable and far in
c excess of what the employees
themselves were demanding
and beyond the financial
capacity of the establishment
and hence violative of the
D fundamental rights guaranteed
under Part 111 of the
Constitution.
(iii) Palekar Wage Board
Date of Date of Challenge
E Appointment Acceptance
11.06.1975/ 26.12.1980 The constitution of Wage
06.02.1976 Board was
challenged on 20.07.1981 on
the ground of lack· of
F
independence. In December
1977, the employers'
representatives wrote to the
Central Government that they
were withdrawing from the
G Wage Board as desired by the
organizations. The government
made several efforts to resolve
the dead lock. On 28.08.1978,
Writ Petitions were filed by the
H
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 411
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
Indian and Eastern Newspaper A
Society and Others in the High
Court at Bombay challenging
the constitution of the Wage
Boards. In order to find a
solution, the President B
promulgated on 31.01.1979
the Working Journalists and
other Newspaper Employees
(Conditions of Service) and
Miscellaneous Provisions c
(Amendment), Ordinance
1979. This ordinance provided
for the constitution of a Tribunal
consisting of a person who is/
or has been a Judge of the 0
High Court or Supreme Court
in place of each. such Board
and the abolition of such
Boards upon the constitution of
such Tribunals and for the
E
continuance of the interim
wages notified by the
Government after taking into
account the recommendations
of such Boards.
F
(iv) Bachawat Wage Board
Date of Date of Challenge
Appointment Acceptance
17.07.1985 31.08.198~ The award was
challenged in Indian G
Express Newspapers
(Pvt.) Ltd. and Ors. vs.
Union of India & Ors.
1995 Supp (4) sec
758. H
412 SUPRE;v1E COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A (v) Manisana Wage Board
Date of Date of Challenge
Appointment Acceptance
09.09.1994 5.12.2000/ This Wage Board's award
B 15.12.2000 was challenged in
by Notification Karnataka and Delhi High
Court. The Court while
deciding the challenge
struck down the award on
c the ground that the proviso
to Section 12(2) was not
followed. However, despite
the Manisana Award being
struck down it was
D implemented by all the
newspaper establishments.
(vi) Narayana Kurup Wage Board - Majithia Wage
Board from 04.03.2009
E Date of Date of Challenge
Appointment Acceptance
24.05.2007 31.12.2010 With a slight modification,
the government notified it on
11.11.2011. Its report is
F accepted and impugned in
these proceedings on
various asserted grounds.
Constitution of Justice Majithia Wage Boards
G
4. The Government constituted two Boards on 24.05.2007,
one for the Working Journalists and the other for Non-Journalist
Newspaper Employees under Sections 9 and 13C of the Act
under the Chairmanship of Dr. Justice Narayana Kurup. The
H Chairman and six of the remaining nine members were
ASP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF !NOIA & ORS. 413
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
common to both the Wage Boards. The remaining three A
members each representing the Working Journalists and Non-
Journalist Newspaper Employees had been nominated by their
respective Unions. The Wage Boards were given three years'
duration to submit their Reports to the Central Government.
B
5. However, due to sudden change of events, Dr. Justice
K. Narayana Kurup, the Chairman of the aforesaid Wage
Boards submitted his resignation effective from 31.07.2008
after completing more than one year's tenure. Subsequently,
Justice Gurbax Rai Majithia, a retired judge of the High Court C
of Mumbai was appointed as the common Chairman of the two
Wage Boards for Working Journalists and other Newspaper
Employees who took over the charge on 04.03.2009. Another
significant change in the composition of the Wage Boards
occurred due to sudden demise of Shri Madan Phadnis
represenUng the All India Newspaper Employees Federation, D
who was a member of the Wage Board for Non-Journalist
Newspaper Employees. In his place, Shri M.C. Narasimhan, as
nominated by the same Federation, was substituted as
member of the Board for Non-Journalist Newspaper Employees.
Since then, the composition of the two Wage Boards has been E
as under:-
Wage Board for Working Journalists
1. Justice Gurbax Rai Majithia, retired.Judge Chairman
F
of the High Court of Bombay at Mumbai
2. Shri K.M. Sahni, Former Secretary, Independent
Ministry of Labour and Employment Member
3. Shri B.P. Singh Independent G
Member
4. Shri P.N. Prasanna Kumar Independent
Member
5. Shri Naresh Mohan, representing Representing H
414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A Indian Newspaper Society . Employers
6. Shri Gurinder Singh, representing All Representing
India Small and Medium Newspapers Employers
7. Shri Prataprai, Tarachand Shah, Representing
B representing Indian language Newspaper Employers
Association
8. Shri K. Vikram Rao, President, Indian Representing
Federation of Working Journalists Working
Journalists
c
9. Dr. Nand Kishore Trikha, President, Representing
National Union of Journalists (India) Working
Journalists
D 10. Shri Suresh Akhouri, President, Indian Representing
Journalists Union Working
Journalists
Wage Board for Non-Journalist Newspaper
Employees
E
1. Justice Gurbax Rai Majithia, retired Judge Chairman "
of the High Court of Bombay at Mumbai
2. Shri K.M. Sahni, Former Secretary, Independent
Ministry of Labour and Employment Member
F
3. Shri B.P. Singh Independent
Member
4. Shri P.N. Prasanna Kumar Independent
Member
G
5. Shri Naresh Mohan, representing Indian Representing
Newspaper Society Employers
6. Shri Gurinder Singh, representing All Representing
H
India Small and Medium Newspapers I Employers
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 415
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
7. Shri Prataprai, Tarachand Shah, Representing A
representing Indian language Newspaper Employers
Association
8. Shri M.C. Narasimhan, Vice Representing
President, All India Newspaper Non- B
Employees Federation Journalist
Newspaper
Employees
9. Shri Uma Shankar Mishra, Vice Representing
President, National Federation of Non- c
Newspaper Employees Journalist
Newspaper
Employees
10 Shri M.S. Yadav, General Secretary, Representing D
Confederation of Newspapers and Non-
News Agencies Employees' Journalist
Organizations. Newspaper
Employees
6 .. Owing to the unexpected change of the members E
constituting the Wage Boards, they could not finalize and submit
c their reports within the prescribed period of three years as
originally notified i.e., by 23.05.2010. As such, their term was
then extended up to 31.12.2010. It is this recommendation
submitted by the Wage Boards, which was subsequently F
accepted by the Central Government and notified on
11.11.2011 that is impugned in the given proceedings.
Discussion
7. In succinct, the petitioners herein, challenged the G
~recommendations of the Wage Boards and the notification
dated 11.11.2011 mainly on the following grounds:-
(i) Constitutional validity of tlJe,Act and the Amendment
~19~. H
416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A (ii) Improper Constitution of the Wage Boards
(iii) Irregularity in the procedure adopted by Majithia
Wage Boards.
(iv) Majithia Wage Boards overlooked the relevant
B
aspects and considered extraneous factors while
drafting the recommendations
We shall examine and deliberate distinctively on each contested
C point surfaced by the petitioners herein in the succeeding
paragraphs.
8. Heard Mr. Anil B. Divan, Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Mr. P.P.
Rao, Mr. Aman Lekhi, Mr. S.S. Ramdas, Mr. Brijender Chahar,
learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Gopal Jain, Mr.
D Akhil Sibal, Mr. Nachiket Joshi, Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Ms. Bina
Gupta, Mr. Manoj Goel, Mr. E.C. Agrawala, learned counsel for
the petitioners, Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned Solicitor General
for the official respondents, Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned senior
E counsel and Mr. Parmanand Pandey and Mr. Thampan
Thomas, learned counsel for other respondents - journalists/
non-journalists.
Constitutional validity of the Act and Amendment Act,
1974
F
9. At the outset, almost all the learned counsel for the
petitioners, challenged the vires of the Act on twin grounds.
Firstly, the Act infringes the guaranteed fundamental rights
under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. Secondly, the Act
G has become obsolete with the passage of time.
10. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners
that misplaced classification and singling out of a specific
business industry being the Newspaper Industry is violative of
H
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 417
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
Article 14 since the Act only regulates the print media and not A
electronic media. Also, in the era of globalization and
liberalization, to shackle one part of the industry with regulations
is unreasonable, unfair and arbitrary and, therefore, violative of
Articles 19(1 )(a) and 19(1 )(g).
8
11. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners besides
objecting to the constitutionality of the Wage Boards also
placed heavy reliance on the fact that in other industries such
as cotton, sugar, tea, coffee, rubber, cement, jute, all the Wage
Boards have been abolished over a period of time (sugar being C
the last in 1989). They further emphasized on the fact that the
National Commission on Labour in 2002 also unequivocally.
recommended that there was no need for a Wage Board to be ·
constituted for any industry.
12. Likewise, it is the stand of the petitioners that due to D
significant socio-economic changes having taken place in the
Indian economy after de-regulation and privatization, the
necessity for Wage Boards has eclipsed. In order to establish
this, learned counsel referred to the object and purpose of the
Act i.e. to ameliorate the conditions of service. According to E
learned senior counsel, this purpose has been achieved today
as journalists are paid a fair wage and also given a
. compensation package. Resultantly, the requirement for
controlling and regulating the conditions of service of
newspaper employees that was prevalent in earlier phase F
(1955 onwards) is no longer required.
13. Precisely, learned counsel for the petitioners stressed
on the ensuing four points to substantiate their claim that there
is a complete change in the scenario since 1955 when the
Press Commission was constituted to go into the conditions G
of employment of working journalists:
(a) The journalists are an essential and vital part of a
newspaper establishment. As an outcome,
newspaper establishments require skills, H
418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A qualification and expertise to ensure the best
content as this is necessary for attracting, retaining
and increasing viewership which, in turn, requires
the full support of journalists.
(b) Through bilateral negotiations and discussions, the
B
petitioners have entered into contracts with a vast
majority of journalists and offered them wages,
salaries and compensation package to retain top
class talent.
c (c) The newspaper industry itself has undergone a sea
change - people 'sleep with the news' (due to the
advent of news channels on television). Further,
printing technology has changed as a consequence
and the newspapers now offer a better quality
D product. Manpower management has been
strengthened to attract the best talent.
(d) There is greater competition from the internet,
digital media in news channels and from foreign
_E newspapers, therefore, there is already an
obligation on the print media to retain the best talent
by providing fine working conditions.
In brief, it was contended that in the present times of economic
liberalization, the Act has become obsolete. As a result, Wage
F Boards have lost their utility and purpose for which they were
set up and the 1955 Act have become outdated and have
outlived its utility especially with the advent of the electronic
media and other avenues.
G 14. Moreover, learned senior counsel submitted that the
track record and report of the Wage Board is another pointer
to this effect. Most of the decisions of the Wage Board have
been quashed. The recommendations of the first Wage Board
were set aside by this Court in Express Newspaper (P) Ltd.
H vs. Union of India 1959 SCR 12 and the previous Manisana
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 419
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
Wage Board (Vth Wage Board) was also set aside by the A
Karnataka High Court and the Delhi High Court on effective
grounds. In view of the above assertions and taking into account
the ground realities, the petitioners prayed that they must be
given a free hand and should not be burdened with an outdated
and antiquated statute. Henceforth, they pleaded for B
abolishment of the Wage Boards and to declare the Act
unconstitutional.
15. In support of the above proposition, learned counsel
for the petitioners also relied on the decisions of this Court in C
John Vallamattom vs. Union of India (2003) 6 SCC 611,
Malpe Vishwanath Acharya vs. State of Maharashtra (1998)
2 SCC 1 and Indian Handicrafts Emporium vs. Union of India
(2003) 1 sec 589.
16. Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned Solicitor General and D
Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel effectively
responded to all the contentions raised by the petitioners, by
relying on Constitution Bench decisions of this Court and
prayed for rejection of their arguments.
E
17. This is not the first time when the aspect as to the
Constitutional Validity of the Act as being ultra vires the
Constitution and violative of fundamental rights is being -
'encountered by this Court. It has already been expressly
decided by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Express
Newspaper (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India AIR 1958 SC 578 and
F
has been held to be intra vires the Constitution. The relevant
portions of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:
Challenge qua Article 19(1)(a):
G
"153. In the present case it is obvious that the only
justification for the enactment of the impugned Act is that
it imposes reasonable restrictions in the interests of a
section of the general public viz. the working journalists and
other persons employed in the newspaper establishments.
H
420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A It does not fall within any of the categories specified in
Article 19(2) viz.
"In the interest of the security of the State, friendly relations
with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or
in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement
B
to an offence."
Article 19(2) being thus out of the question, the only point
that falls to be determined by us is whether the provisigns
of the impugned Act in any way take away or abridge the
c petitioners, fundamental right of freedom of speech and
expression.
154. It was contended before us by the learned Attorney-
General that it was only legislation directly dealing with the
o right mentioned in Article 19(1)(a) that was protected by
it. If the legislation was not a direct legislation on the
subject, Article 19(1 )(a) would have no application, the test ·
being not the effect or result of legislation but its subject-
matter ... "
E *** *** ***
"160 .... It could therefore hardly be urged that the possible
effect of the impact of these measures in conceivable
cases would vitiate the legislation as such. All the
F consequences which have been visualized in this behalf
by the petitioners viz. the tendency to curtail circulation and
thereby narrow the scope of dissemination of information,
fetters on the petitioners freedom to choose the means of
exercising the right, likelihood of the independence of the
G press being undermined by having to seek government
aid; the imposition of penalty on the petitioner's right to
choose the instruments for exercising the freedom or
compelling them to seek alternative media etc, would be
remote and depend upon various factors whicl 1 may or
may not come into play. Unless these were the direct or
H
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 421
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
inevitable consequences of the measures enacted in the A
impugned Act, it would not be possible to strike down the
legislation as having that effect and operation. A possible
eventuality of this type would not necessarily be the
consequence which could be in the contemplation of the
legislature while enacting a measure of this type for the B
benefit of the workmen concerned.
161. Even though the impugned Act enacts measures for
the benefit of the working journalists who are employed in
newspaper establishments, the working journalists are but C
the vocal organs and the necessary agencies for the
exercise of the right of free speech and expression, and
any legislation directed towards the amelioration of their
conditions of service must necessarily affect the
newspaper establishments and have its repercussions on
the freedom of press. The impugned Act can therefore be D
legitimately characterized as a measure which affects the
press, and if the intention or the proximate effect and
operation of the Act was such as to bring it within the
mischief of Article 19(1)(a) it would certainly be liable to
be struck down. The real difficulty, however, in the way of E
the petitioners is that whatever be the measures enacted
for the benefit of the working journalists neither the intention
nor the effect and operation of the impugned act is to take
away or abridge the right of freedom of speech and
expression enjoyed by the petitioners. F
162. The gravamen of the complaint of the petitioners
against the impugned Act, however, has been the
appointment of the Wage Board for fixation of rates of
wages for the working journalists and it is contended that
apart from creating a class of privileged workers with G
benefits and rights which were not conferred upon other
employees of industrial establishments, the act has left the
fixation of rates of wages to an agency invested with
arbitrary and uncanalised powers to impose an
indetermi.nate burden on the wage structure of the press, H
422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A to impose such employer-employee relations as in its
discretion it thinks fit and to impose such burden and
relations for such time as it thinks proper. This contention
will be more appropriately dealt with while considering the
alleged infringement of the fundamental right enshrined in
B Article 19(1 )(g). Suffice it to say that so far as Article
19(1 )(a) is concerned this contention also has a remote
bearing on the same and need not be discussed here at
any particular length."
C Challenge qua Article 19(1)(g)
"209. This attack of the petitioners on the constitutionality
of the impugned Act under Article 19(1 )(g) viz. that it
violates the petitioners' fundamental right to carry on
business, therefore fails except in regard to Section
5(1 )(a)(iii) thereof which being clearly severable from the
rest of the provisions, can be struck down as
unconstitutional without invalidating the other parts of the
. impugned Act."
E 18. In succinct, the Constitution Bench of this Court i:n the
aforesaid case held that the impugned Act, judged by its
provisions, was not such a law but was a beneficent legislation
intended to regulate the conditions of service o1 the working
journalists and the consequences that were adverted to in that
case could not be the direct and inevitable result of it. It also
F expressed the view that although there could be no doubt that
liberty of the press was an essential part of the freedom of
speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1 )(a) and
if the law were to single out the press to lay prohibitive burdens,
it would fall outside the protection afforded by Article 19(2), the
G impugned Act which directly affected the press fall outlside the
categories of protection mentioned in Article 19(2) had not the
effect of taking away or abridging the freedom of speech and
expression of the petitioners and did not, therefore, infringe
Article 19(1 )(a) of the Constitution. Nor could it be held lo be
H violative of Article 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution in view of the·te~t
ASP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 423
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
of reasonableness laid down by this Court. A
19. Alternative challenge to the constitutionality of the Act
was on the basis that selecting working journalists for giving
favored treatment is violative of Article 14 as it is not a
reasonable classification as permissible in the aforesaid
8
Article. The Constitution Bench dealt with this aspect in the
following terms:
Challenge qua Article 14
"210. Re: Art 14.- The question as formulated is that the c
impugned Act selected the working journalists for favoured
treatment by giving them a statutory guarantee of gratuity,
hours of work and leave which other persons in similar or
comparable employment had not got and in providing for
the fixation of their salaries without following the normal 0
procedure envisaged in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The following propositions are advanced:
1. In selecting the Press industry employers from all
industrial employers governed by the ordinary law
regulating industrial relations under the Industrial Disputes E
Act, 1947 and Act 1 of 1955 the impugned Act subjects
the Press industry employers to discriminatory treatment.
2. Such discrimination lies in
F
(a) singling out newspaper employees for differential
treatment;
(b) saddling them with a new burden in regard to a
section of their workers in matters of gratuities,
compensation, hours of work and wages; G
(c) devising a machinery in the form of a Pay
Commission for fixing the wages of working journalists;
(d) not prescribing the major criterion of capacity to
H
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A pay to be taken into consideration;
(e) allowing the Board in fixing the wages to adopt
any arbitrary procedure even violating the principle of audi
alteram partem;
B (f) permitting the Board the discretion to operate the
procedure of the Industrial Disputes Act for some
newspapers and any arbitrary procedure for others;
(g) making the decision binding only on the
c employers and not on the employees, and
(h) providing for the recovery of money due from the
employers in the same manner as an arrear of land
revenue.
D 3. The classification made by the impugned Act is
arbitrary and unreasonable, insofar as it removes the
newspaper employers vis-a-vis working journalists from the
general operation of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and
Act 1 of 1955.
E *** *** ***
212. We have already set out what the Press Commission
had to say in regard to the position of the working
journalists in our country. A further passage from the
F Report may also be quoted in this context:
"It is essential to realize in this connection that the
work of a journalist demands a high degree of general
education and some kind of specialized training.
G Newspapers are a vital instrument for the education of the
masses and it is their business to protect the rights of the
people, to reflect and guide public opinion and to criticize
the wrong done by any individual or organization however
high placed. They thus form an essential adjunct to
H democracy. The profession must, therefore, be manned by
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 425
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
men of high intellectual and moral qualities. The journalists A
are in a sense creative artists and the public rightly or
wrongly, expect from them a general omniscience and a
capacity to express opinion on any topic that may arise
under the sun. Apart from the nature of their work the
conditions under which that work is to be performed, are B
peculiar to this profession. Journalists have to work at very
high pressure and as most of the papers come out in the
morning, the journalists are required to work late in the
night and round the clock. The edition must go to press
by a particular time and all the news that breaks before c
that hour has got to find its place in that edition. Journalism
thus becomes a highly specialized job and to handle it
adequately a person should be well-read, have the ability
to size up a situation and to arrive quickly at the correct
conclusion, and have the capacity to stand the stress and 0
strain of the work involved. His work cannot be measured,
as in other industries, by the quantity of the output, for the
quality of work is an essential element in measuring the
capacity of the journalists. Moreover, insecurity of tenure
is a peculiar feature of this profession. This is not to say E
that no security exists in other professions but
circumstances may arise in connection with profession of
journalism which may lead to unemployment in this
profession, which would not necessarily have that result in
other professions. Their security depends to some extent
on the whims and caprices of the proprietors. We have F
come across cases where a change in the ownership of
the paper or a change in the editorial policy of the paper
has resulted in a considerable change in the editorial staff.
In the case of other industries a change in the
proprietorship does not normally entail a change in the G
staff. But as the essential purpose of a newspaper is not
only to give news but to educate and guide public opinion,
a change in the proprietorship or in the editorial policy of
the paper may result and in some cases has resulted in a
wholesale change of the staff on the editorial side. These H
426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A circumstances, which are peculiar to journalism must be
borne in mind in framing any scheme for improvement of
the conditions of working journalists." (para 512).
213. These were the considerations which weighed with
the Press Commission in recommending the working
B
journalists for special treatment as compared with the other
employees of newspaper establishments in the matter of
amelioration of their conditions of service.
*** *** ***
c
215 .... The working journalists are thus a group by
themselves and could be classified as such apart from the
other employees of newspaper establishments and if the
legislature embarked upon a legislation for the purpose of
D ameliorating their conditions of service there was nothing
discriminatory about it. They could be singled out thus for
preferential treatment against the other employees of
newspaper establishments. A classification of this type
could not come within the ban of Article 14. The only thing
which is prohibited under this article is that persons
E
belonging to a particular group or class should not be
treated differently as amongst themselves and no such
charge could be levelled against this piece of legislation.
If this group of working journalists was specially treated in
this manner there is no scope for the objection that that
F group had a special legislation enacted for its benefit or
that a special machinery was created, for fixing the rates
of its wages different from the machinery employed for
other workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The
payment of retrenchment compensation and gratuities, the
G regulation of their hours of work and the fixation of the rates
of their wages as compared with those of other workmen
in the newspaper establishments could also be enacted
without any such disability and the machinery for fixing their
rates of wages by way of constituting a Wage Board for
H the purpose could be similarly devised. There was no
ASP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 427
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
industrial dispute as such which had arisen or was A
apprehended to arise as between the employers and the
working journalists in general, though it could have possibly
arisen as between the employers in a particular
newspaper establishment and its own working journalists.
What was contemplated by the provisions of the impugned B
Act, however, was a general fixation of rates of wages of
working journalists which would ameliorate the conditions
of their service and the constitution of a Wage Board for
this purpose was one of the established modes of
achieving that object. If, therefore, such a machinery was c
devised for their benefit, there was nothing objectionable
in it and there was no discrimination as between the
working journalists and the other employees of newspaper
establishments in that behalf...
216 .... Even considering the Act as a measure of social D
welfare legislation the State could only make a beginning
somewhere without embarking on similar legislations in
relation to all other industries and if that was done in this
case no charge could be levelled against the State that it
was discriminating against one industry as compared with E
the others. The classification could well be founded on
geographical basis or be according to objects or
occupations or the like. The only question for consideration
would be whether there was a nexus between the basis
of classification and the object of the Act sought to be F
challenged. In our opinion, both the conditions of
permissible classification were fulfilled in the present case.
The classification was based on an intelligible differentia
which distinguished the working journalists from other
employees of newspaper establishments and that G
differentia had a rational relation to the object sought to
be achieved viz. the amelioration of the conditions of
service of working journalists."
20. The above position has been reiterated by this Court H
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A in the form of observations in Express Publications (Madurai)
Ltd. vs. Union of India (2004) 11 SCC 526. The relevant portion
of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:
"29 ... The observations in the judgment were
pressed into service in support of the contention that
B
freedom of speech and expression would be adversely
affected by continuing the definition of "excluded
employee" in respect of the newspaper industry wrnch has
been singled out for harsh treatment. As can be seen from
above, observations have been made in a different
c context. In any case, the decision, far from supporting the
contention of the petitioners, in fact, to an extent lends
support to the benefit that was given to the employees of
the newspaper industry in the year 1956 as a result of the
impugned provision. It has to be remembered that in
D spreading information, the employees of newspaper
industry play a dominant role and considering the
employees of newspaper industry as a "class", this benefit
was extended almost at the same time when the Working
Journalists Act was enacted. Thus, there can be no
E question of any adverse effect on the freedom of press.
The financial burden on the employer, on facts as herein,
cannot be said to be a "harsh treatment". The contention
that now the petitioners are unable to bear the financial
burden which they have been bearing for the last over forty-
F five years is wholly irrelevant. It is for the petitioners to
manage their affairs if they intend to continue with their
activity as newspaper establishment.
*** *** ***
G 31. This Court noticed that the journalists are but the
vocal organs and the necessary agencies for the exercise
of the right of free speech and expression and any
legislation directed towards the amelioration of their
conditions of service must necessarily affect the
H newspaper establishments and have its repercussions on
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF !NOIA & ORS. 429
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
the freedom of press. The impugned Act can, therefore, A
be legitimately characterised as a measure which affects
the press and if the intention or the proximate effect and
operation of the Act was such as to bring it within the
mischief of Article 19(1)(a), it would c~rtainly be liable to
be struck down. The real difficulty, however, in the way of B
the petitioners is that whatever be the measures enacted
for the benefit of the working journalists neither the intention
nor the effect and operation of the impugned Act is to take
away or abridge the right of freedom of speech and
expr,:ission enjoyed by the petitioners. The question of c
violation of right of freedom of speech and expression as
guaranteed under Article 19(1 )(a) in the present case on
account of additional burden as a result of the impugned
provision does not arise.
*** *** *** D
34. In the light of the aforesaid principles, in Express
Newspaper the Court considered whether the Act
impugned therein violated the fundamental right
guaranteed under Article 14. It was observed that in E
framing the Scheme, various circumstances peculiar to the
press had to be taken into consideration. These
considerations weighed with the Press Commission in
recommending special treatment for working journalists in
the matter of amelioration of their conditions of service. The
F
position as prevailing in other countries was also noticed.
In a nutshell, the working journalists were held as a group
by themselves and could be classified as such. If the
legislature embarked upon a legislation for the purpose of
ameliorating their conditions of service, there was nothing G
discriminatory about it. They could be singled out for
preferential treatment. It was opined that classification of
this type could not come within the ban of Article 14.
Considering the position in regard to the alleged
discrimination between press industry employers on one
hand and the other industrial employers on the other, it was H
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A said that even considering the Act as a measure of social
welfare legislation, the State could only make a beginning
somewhere without embarking on similar legislations in
relation to all other industries and if that was done in this
case no charge could be levelled against the State that it
B was discriminating against one industry as compared with
the others. The classification could well be founded on
geographical basis or be according to objects or
occupations or the like. The only question for consideration
would be whether there was a nexus between the basis
c of classification and the object of the Act sought to, be
achieved. Both the conditions of permissible classification
were fulfilled. The classification was held to be based on
an intelligible differentia which had a rational relation to the
object sought to be achieved viz. the amelioration of the
conditions of service of working journalists. The attack on
D
constitutionality of the Act based on Article 14 was
negatived.
35. Though challenge in the aforesaid case was to
special treatment to working journalists but what is to be
E seen is, that the press industry was held to be a class by _ .
itself. The definition of "newspaper employee" takes into
its fold all the employees who are employed to do any work
in, or in relation to, any newspaper establishment. The
decision in Express Newspaper case amply answers the
F main contention about the press industry having been
singled out, against the petitioners. This decision also
holds that to provide social welfare legisl~tion and grant
benefit, a beginning had to be made somewhere without
embarking on similar legislation in relation to other
industries. The fact that even after about half a century
similar benefit has not been extended to the employees
of any other industry, will not result in invalidation of benefit
given to employees of press industry. It is not for us to
decide when, if at all, to extend the benefit to others. In view
H of the aforesaid, we are unable to accept the contention
ASP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 431
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
that the impugned provision is violative of Article 14 on the A
ground that it singles out newspaper industry by excluding
income test only in regard to the said industry.
36. Apart from the fact that it may not be always
possible to grant to everyone all benefits in one go at the
8
same time, it seems that the impugned provision and the
enacting of the Working Journalists Act was part of a
package deal and that probably is the reason for other
newspaper establishments not challenging it and the
petitioners also challenging it only after lapse of so many C
years. Further, Sections 2(i), 4 and Schedule I of the
Provident Fund Act show how gradually the scope of the
Act has been expanded by the Central Government and
the Act and Scheme made applioable to various branches
of industries. From whatever angle we may examine, the
attack on the constitutional validity based on Article 14 D
cannot be accepted."
Challenge qua Amendment Act, 1974
21. The petitioners herein have also challenged the vires
E
_of the Amendment Act, 1974 on the ground that extending the
benefit of the Act to employees other than working journalists
is against the object that was sought to be achieved by the
original Act since the benefits to other newspaper employees
has no rational nexus between the differentia and the object
sought to be achieved. In this regard, as already discussed,
F
challenge as to the singling out of the newspaper industry per
se was rejected by the Constitution Bench in Express
Newspaper (P) Ltd. (supra) and the newspaper industry was
held to be a class by itself. All that the 1974 amendment did
was to only bring the other employees of the newspaper G
industry (i.e. non-working journalists) into the ambit of the Act
and extend the benefits of the Act to them. Thus, the same is
also covered as per the reasoning of the Constitution Bench
decision of this Court. Therefore, the challenge as to the
Amendment Act, 1974 stands disallowed. H
432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A 22. Although, the aspect of violation of Article 14 was
intricately decided by the Constitution Bench, it is the stand of
the petitioners herein that while there may have been some
justification for dealing only with newspaper establishments in
1955, however, with the revolution in information technology,
B there is no justification for confining regulation only to print
media as in the existing scenario persons engaged in the same
avocation Oournalism) would be subject to different restrictions
and would be unreasonably hampered in the social and
industrial relations with each other. Further, it is submitted by
c the petitioners that the classification between journalists in
newspaper establishments and others does not bear any
relationship with the object. Therefore, the continuation of such
a provision would create a disadvantaged class i.e. newspaper
establishments without there being a rational basis for the same
and consequently affecting both the incentive and capacity to
0
achieve the object for which classification is made. After the
very lapse of a long period from the date of enactment of the
Act and the connected change of circumstances during this
period has made the law discriminatory as it is now arbitrarily
confined to a selected group out of a large number of other
E persons similarly situated. Henceforth, it is the stand of the
petitioners that the grab of constitutionality that the Act may have
possessed earlier has worn out and its constitutionality is open
to a successful challenge.
F 23. While this argument may be as appealing as it sounds,
yet we are not inclined to interfere on this point of challenge in
order to maintain the equity among parties. It is important that
this Court appreciates the realm of Article 14 of the Constitution
in the light of the interest of both employers and the employees
G and not in one-sided manner. The argument of the petitioners
that it is violative of Article 14 is one version of the story i.e.
employers grievance, whereas this Court must look into the
perspective of employees also while determining the issue at
hand.
'H
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 433
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
24. For the ensuing two reasons, this Coult is opting for A
not to interfere on this alleged ground of challenge. Firstly, the
petitioners cannot espouse the grievance of those employees
working in the electronic media for non-inclusion and, more
particularly, when those employees are not before this Court.
Secondly, the fact that similar benefits are not extended to the B
employees of other similar industry will not result in invalidation
of benefit given to the employees of press industry. Recalling
that media industry is still an upcoming sector unlike the press
industry, which is as ancient as our independence itself, the
scope for potential policies in future cannot be overruled. In view c
of the same, this ground of challenge is rejected.
25. As regards the second ground of challenge, i.e., the
Act over the passage of time has outlived its utility and the
object that was sought to be achieved originally has become
obsolete especially in view of the fact that Wage Boards for 0
other industries have been abolished, it is our cogent opinion
that mere passage of time by itself would not result in the
invalidation of the Act and its object. The validity once having
been upheld by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Express
Newspapers (P) Ltd. (supra), the same cannot be now E
challenged saying that it has outlived its object and purpose and
·has been worn out by the passage of time. The principles laid
down in Motor General Traders vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
(1984) 1 SCC 222 and Ratan Arya vs. State of Tamil Nadu
(1986) 3 SCC 385 are squarely inapplicable as has been held F
in the context of identical factual scenario.
26. When this Court was considering the case of a
newspaper establishment qua para 82 of the Employees'
Provident Funds Scheme in Express Publications (Madurai) G
Ltd. (supra), the said judgment also puts the challenge as to
the vires of the Act like the one made by the petitioners in the
present case, but beyond pale of any doubt, it consciously
reiterates the spirit of law laid down in Express Newspaper (P)
Ltd. (supra).
H
434 SUPREME C-OURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A 27. The petitioners relied on the Report of the Second
National Commission of Labour to contend that the Act has
become archaic. In this regard, it is relevant to note that the
aforementioned Report is not relevant, as the Government has
not accepted the said Report insofar as the Statutory Wage
B Boards are concerned. Thus, any observation in the said
Report as to the non-requirement of Wage Boards generally,
cannot be the basis for not complying with the statutory
obligations under the Act. Insofar as the 2002 National
Commission of Labour Report is concerned, as stated above,
c the same has not been accepted by the Government of India,
in respect of the functioning of the Act.
28. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the
opinion that the challenge as to the vires of the Act on the
premise of it being ultra vires the Constitution and violative of
D fundamental rights is wholly unfounded, baseless and
completely untenable.
29. It is true that newspaper industry, with the advent of
electronic media, continues to face greater challenges similar
E 'fo the ones as observed by the Press Commission as noted
in the Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. (supra) enumerated
hereinabove. Thus, the contention of the petitioners that though
the newspaper industry may be growing, the growth of the
electronic media is relatively exponential, in fact, substantiates -
F the very necessity of why a wage board for working journalists
and other newspaper employees of the newspaper industry
should exist.
Improper Constitution of the Wage Boards
G 30. As reiterated hitherto, the Wage Boards constituted
under Sections 9 and 13C of the Act are required to be
comprised of 10 members i.e. one Chairman, three
independent members, three representatives for employers
and three representatives for employees. On behalf of the
H petitioners herein (newspaper management), it was contended
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 435
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
that there was a defect in the constitution of the Wage Boards A
as Mr. K.M. Sahani and Mr. Prasanna Kumar were not
independent members thus, it fatally vitiates the constitution and
proceedings of the Majithia Wage Boards. On the other hand,
it was pointed out by learned Solicitor General for the Union of
India and the employees that the constitution of the Wage B
Boards have been undertaken strictly in accordance with the
Act and the "Independent Members", so required, under
Sections 9(c) and 13C(c) of the Act have been appointed in
accordance with the law. Let us examine this point of strife
based on the factual matrix. c
31. The petitioners' main ground of challenge to ML K.M .
. Sahni's independence is that since at the relevant time he was
a former Secretary of Ministry of Labour and Employment,
Government of India and during his tenure the decision to
constitute the Wage Board was taken and, thus, he cannot be D
expected to be an independent and free from bias. It is seen
from the materials placed on record by the Union of India that
in order to operationalize the Boards, Shri K.M. Sahni, who had
superannuated as Secretary to Government of India on
31.12.2006 was appointed as Member-Secretary on E
24.01.2007 for a period of three years or till the duration of the
.Wage Board, whichever is earlier. Merely because a person
,was in the employmentofthe Government, he does not cease
; to become "independent" for the purposes of being an
' independent member of the Committee to recommend the fixing F
of wages.
32. Similar fact underlying this issue has been the subject-
matter of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Narayana
Velur Beedi Manufacturing Factory (1973) 4 SCC 178, and it G
is only necessary to set out the summary thereof given by A.N.
Grover, J.:
"9. In our judgment the view which has prevailed with the
majority of the High Courts must be sustained. The
committee or the advisory board can only tender advice H
436 SUPREME COURT REPORJS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A which is not binding on the Government while fixing the
minimum wages or revising the same as the case may be.
Of course, the Government is expected, partic~larly in the
present democratic set-up, to take that advic~ seriously
into consideration and act on it but it is not bound to do
B so. The language of Section 9 does not contain any
indication whatsoever that persons in the employment of
the Government would be excluded from the category of
independent persons. Those words have essentially been
employed in contradistinction to representatives of
c employer and employees. In other words, apart from the
representatives of employers and employees there should
be persons who should be independent of them. It does
not follow that persons in the service or employ of the
Government were meant to be excluded and they cannot
be regarded as independent persons vis-a-vis the
D
representatives of the employers and employees. Apart
from this the presence of high government officials who
may have actual working knowledge about the problems
of employers and employees can afford a good deal of
guidance and assistance in formulating the advice which
E is to be tendered under Section 9 to the appropriate
Government. It may be that in certain circumstances such
persons who are in the service of the Government may
cease to have an independent character if the question ,,
arises of fixation of minimum wages in a scheduled
F employment in which the appropriate Government is
directly interested. It would, therefore, depend upon the
facts of each particular case whether the persons who have
been appointed from out of the class of independent
persons can be regarded as independent or not. But the
G mere fact that they happen to be government officials or
government servants will not divest them of the character
of independent persons. We are not impressed with the
reasoning adopted that a government official will have a
bias, or that he may favour the pol;cy which the appropriate
H Government may be inclined to adopt because when he
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA.& ORS. 437
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
is a member of an advisory committee or board he is A
expected to give an impartial and independent advice and
not merely carry out what the Government may be inclined
to do. Government officials are responsible persons and
it cannot be said that they are not capable of taking a
detached and impartial view." B
33. Consequently, merely because Shri K.M. Sahni was
a part of the Government that took the decision to set up the
Wage Boards, does not automatically follow that he ceased to
be an "independent" member of the Wage Boards. We are
i satisfied that Shri K.M. Sahni is an independent member of the C
· Board and cannot be considered to be "biased" in any manner.
34. The petitioners also allege that Mr. P.N. Prasanna
Kumar, as an experienced journalist and having been
associated with various journalistic institutions in his long D
journalistic career, cannot be considered to be an
"independent" member and, therefore, was biased in favour of
the employees. Learned Solicitor General has rightly pointed
out that only vague and general allegations have been alleged
i against him and no specific allegations that he acted in a E
· manner that was biased against the employers has been levied
by the petitioners.
35. It is well-settled that mere apprehension of bias is not
enough and there must be cogent evidence available on record
F
to come to the conclusion. Reference may be made to Kumaon
Manda/ Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. Girja Shankar Pant (2001) 1
sec 182 in the following words:
"10. The word "bias" in popular English parlance
stands included within the attributes and broader purview G
of the word "malice", which in common acceptation means
and implies "spite" or "ill-will" (Stroud's Judicial Dictionary,
5th Edn., Vol. 3) and it is now well settled that mere general
statements will not be sufficient for the purposes of
indication of ill-will. There must be cogent evidence H
438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A available on record to come to the conclusion as to
whether in fact there was existing a bias which resulted in
the miscarriage of justice."
36. This Court, in State of Punjab vs. V.K. Khanna (2001)
B 2 SCC 330, has held as follows:
"8. The test, therefore, is as to whether there is a
mere apprehension of bias or there is a real danger of
bias and it is on this score that the surrounding
circumstances must and ought to be collated and
C necessary conclusion drawn therefrom. In the event,·
however, the conclusion is otherwise that there is existing _
a real danger of bias administrative action cannot be
sustained. If on the other hand allegations pertain to rather
fanciful apprehension in administrative action, question of
D declaring them to be unsustainable on the basis therefor,
would not arise."
37. The contention of the petitioners alleging bias against
independent members of the Wage Boards, being based
E merely on their past status, is entirely baseless in law and
amounts to imputing motives. Further, the petitioners have ·
nowhere. established or even averred that the independent
members are guilty of legal bias as expressed in Perspective
Publications vs. State of Maharashtra (1969) 2 SCR 779, !hat
is, making their recommendations on the basis of wholly
F extraneous considerations or personal or pecuniary benefit.
38. On perusal of the materials available, we are satisfied
that the Wage Boards have functioned in a fully balanced
manner. Besides, it is a fact that the petitioners had challenged
G the constitution of the Wage Board before the High Court of
Delhi, admittedly, the High Court had declined to grant interim
relief. The said order declining/refusing to grant interim relief
attained finality as the petitioners did not choose to challenge
it before this Court. Thereafter, the petitioners have participated
H in the proceedings and acquiesced themselves with the
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 439
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
proceedings of the Board. In view of the fact that they have . A
participated in the proceedings without seriously having
challenged the constitution as well as the composition, the
petitioners cannot now be allowed to challenge the same at this
stage. More so, it is also pertinent to take note of the fact that
the petitioners herein opted for challenging the independence B
of the nominated independent members only after the
recommendations by the Wage Boards were notified by the
Central Government.
39. Hence, the attack of the petitioners on the
independence of the appointed independent members by C
saying that they were not sufficiently neutral, impartial or
unbiased towards the petitioners herein, is incorrect in the light
of factual matrix and cannot be raised at this point of time when
they willfully conceded to the proceedings. Consequently, we
are not inclined to accept this ground of challenge. D
40. Apart from the challenge to the independence of the
members, the petitioners also contended that two separate
Wage Boards ought to have been constituted instead of a
common wage board. It is relevant to point out that ever since E
the 1974 amendment only a common wage board was being
constituted. The Financial Memorandum accompanying the
Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous
Provisions (Amendment) Bill, 1974 specifically states that "the
intention is to constitute Wage Boards under the said Section
9 and proposed Section 13C as far as possible at the same F
time and to have a common Chairman and a common
Secretariat for both the Boards". Further, it is brought to our
notice that the Palekar Tribunal (1980), Bachawat Wage Board
(1989) and Manisana Wage Board (2000) constituted after
1974 amendment were all common Boards/Tribunal for both G
working journalists and non-journalists. Though the members
representing employers were common, they were not
incapacitated in any manner as is being contended by the
petitioners. They were having two votes as they were
· representing the employers in both the Boards. H
440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A 41. In addition, the representatives from the employers'
side are common in both the Wage Boards as all types of
newspaper employees, either working journalists or non-
journalists found to be working under common employers.
Having common representatives of the employers on the two
B Wage Boards are expected to be favorable to the employers
as they can make a fair assessment of the requirements of the
working journalists and non-journalist newspaper employees of
the newspaper industry as a whole. However, as the two Wage
Boards have separate entities meant for working journalists and
C non-journalist newspaper employees, there cannot be common
representatives who can protect the interest and represent
working journalists as well as non-journalist newspaper
employees. Therefore, members representing working
journalists were nominated to the Wage Board for the working
journalists. Similarly, members representing non-journalist
.D
newspaper employees were nominated to the Wage Boards
for non-journalist newspaper employees. As aforesaid, for
administrative convenience, four independent members,
including the Chairman were common for both the Wage
Boards. In our cogent view, this arrangement in no way affects
E the interest of the employers and the challenge of the petitioners
in this regard is unfounded.
Irregularity in the procedure followed by Majithia Wage
Boards
F 42. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out to a
series of factual aspects to demonstrate that there existed
irregularity in the decision making process by the Majithia Wage
Board which was attacked as ultra vires the Act and contrary
to procedure adopted by the predecessor Wage Boards. In
G succinct, the stand of the petitioners is that Majithia Wage
Board Report was prepared in a hasty manner and
subsequently, the recommendations have been accepted by the
Central Government without proper hearing or affording
opportunity to all the stakeholders. Whereas the respondent -
H Union of India clearly contended otherwise and submitted that
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 441
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
the impugned Wage Boards throughout adopted a fair A
procedure, which stands the test of natural justice. Besides, it
is the stand of the respondents that the representatives of the
manag~ment were not cooperating but were merely attending
the Wage Board proceedings, therefore, the Chairman was not
getting adequate aid and help from the representatives of the B
newspaper owners.
43. Broadly, the petitioners' foremost contention is th~t the
Wage Boards have not functioned in accordance with the law
inasmuch qS no questionnaire was issued to elicit information C
to determin~ the capacity to pay and that principles of natural
justice were not followed in conducting the proceedings and for
arriving at th~ recommendations, which was the accustomed
procedure of previous Wage Boards. At the outset, it is relevant
to point out that under Section 11 (1) of the Act, Wage Board
has special powers to regulate its own procedure. It is not D
obligatory for the Wage Boards to follow the exact procedure
of the earlier Wage Boards and as such there is no requirement
in law to follow a strictly laid down procedure in its functioning.
Besides, as long as it follows the principles of natural justice
and fairness, its functioning cannot be called into question on E
the ground of irregularity in the procedure. Now, let us examine
the submissions of the petitioners in this light.
44. It is brought to our notice that detailed questionnaire
was issued on 24.07.2007. The petitioners in their opening F
arguments contended that no questionnaire was issued.
However, the Union of India placed voluminous documents to
demonstrate that a detailed questionnaire was in fact issued
on 24.07.2007 and that this questionnaire was commented
upon and it was .corrected also and further respondents also G
received replies pursuant to the same. The petitioners in their
rejoinder have attempted to make a feeble argument that the
said questionnaire was issued by the secretariat and not by the
Wage Boards, which is fit to be rejected. ·
45. It is also brought to our notice that several attempts H
442 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A were made by the Wage Boards to get the relevant information
fro111 the employers but many of the petitioners had not given
financial data and abstained from attending the Board's
proceedings. Records produced show that the questionnaire
was sent to all the subscribers listed in the directory of
B newspaper establishments published by INS for the year 2008-
09 and the list supplied by the PTI for sending financial
information from 2000-01 to 2009-10. Regular follow up with
the employers was made and series of letters were issued to
collect financial information. Apart from the questionnaire,
c notices inviting representation as per Section 10(1) of the Act
were published in 125 newspapers. Further, on 05.07.2010,
summons were issued to around one hundred and forty stake .
holders and they were given final chance to submit the
information within fifteen days of the summons. In addition to
this, a two page simplified questionnaire was also issued on
0
02.03.2010.
46. Consequently, the allegation that only 40
establishments have been used as parameters which is under-
representative of the industry is incorrect. In fact, as has been
E detailed in the Report, the data from newspaper establishments
was not forthcoming (vide pages 100-101 of Majithia Wage
Board Report). With all these efforts, financial information could
be collected from only sixty-six establishments and after
scrutiny, it was found that financial information received from
F only forty establishments was useful in developing an overall
view of the financial status of the newspaper industry. Therefore,
it was only upon much effort and repeated requests that the
data in respect of 40 establishments could be collected by the
Wage Board. Besides, these 40 establishments are
G representatives of the different class of newspaper
establishments that are carrying on business in the country and
in addition detailed submissions by representative groups such
a.s the Indian Newspaper Society (INS) were also considered.
Thus, it can certainly be construed that these representative
H bodies presented an overview of the whole newspaper industry,
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF !NOIA & ORS. 443
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
apart from the information being collected from the individual A
establishments.
47. From the records, we furnish the following chronology
of events:
"Letter dated 28.12.2007 by Mr. Naresh Mohan containing B
"Comments on Draft Questionnaire"
Letters dated 14.01.2008 and 18.01.2008 requesting for
extension of time for submission of response to
questionnaire
c
Letter dated 14.02.2008 extending time limit for
submission of response to questionnaire till 30.06.2008
Response of Hitavada Shramik Sangh, Nagpur dated
23.06.2008 to the questionnaire
D
Response of the Times of India and Allied Publications'
Employees' Union to the questionnaire
Letters by various Employees' Union requ~sti_!lg fQr
exten_slon of.time- fof-stibmission of response to
questionnaire E
Letter dated 14.11.2008 addressed to all the members of
the Wage Boards seeking their views on extending the last
date for submission of completed questionnaire up to
28.02.2009 F
Letter dated 04.12.2008 by Mr. Naresh Mohan expressing
no objection for extending the last date for submission of
completed questionnaire up to 28.02.2009
Letters dated 17.12.2008, 18.12.2008, 19.12.2008 G
addressed to the members of the Wage Board,
stakeholders informing extension of last date for
submission of completed questionnaire up to 28.02.2009
Letters dated 19.03.2009, 08.06.2009, 09.06.2009
H
444 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A addressed to the members of the Wage Board,
stakeholders informing extension of last date for
submission of completed questionnaire up to 30.06.2009
Letter dated 03.07.2009 addressed to the Wage Board
members to prevail upon their constituents to submit their
B
response to the questionnaire
Response of Lokmat Shramik Sanghatana, Nagpur dated
04.02.2009 to the questionnaire
Response of the Tribune Employees Union, Chandigarh
c dated 25.07.2009 to the questionnaire
Response of National Union of Journalists (India) dated
31.08.2009 to the questionnaire
Letter dated 01.09.2009 by Chairman, Wage Boards
0
requesting the members of the Wage Boards to prevail
upon their constituents to submit their response to the
questionnaire
Response of the Press Trust of India Ltd. dated
E 29.09.2009 to the submissions dated 30.06.2009 made
by Federation of PTI Employees' Union and to the
questionnaire
Letter dated 12.05.2010 forwarding copies of responses
to the questionnaire received by the Wage Boards to all
F the members.
The notice dated 16.11.2007 issued under Sections 10(1)
and 130 of the Act was published in 125 newspapers
Considering the requests and representations received
G from various stakeholders, the time period for making
representation in terms of Sections 10(1) and 130 of the
Act was extended till 30.06.2008
The time period for making representation in terms of
H Sections 10(1) and 130 of the Act was further extended
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 445
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
till 31.10.2008 A
The time period for making representation in terms of
Sections 10(1) and 130 of the Act extended till 28.02.2009
The time period for making representation in terms of
Sections 10(1) and 130 of the Act was extended till B
30.06.2009
The time period for making representation in terms of
Sections 10(1) and 130 of the Act was extended till
06.08.2009 c
Notice dated 09.07.2010 was given to all the stakeholders
for final hearing before the Wage Boards on 26.07.2010
to 01.08.201 O"
48. In addition to the aforesaid chronology of events, a D
perusal of Chapter 3 of the Majithia Wage Board
recommendations will clearly indicate that the procedure
adopted by the Wage Boards did, in fact, give ample
opportunities to the stakeholders to give representations and
financial data, etc. so that the same may be considered by the E
Wage Boards for making their recommendations. However,
many of the petitioners have never bothered to attend the
proceedings of the Wage Board and submitted financial data.
49. The details of the meetings and oral hearings
F
conducted by the Wage Boards (culled out from the Wage
Board proceedings) are as follows:
"30.06.2007 First meeting of the wage boards was held.
02-04.08.2007 Second meeting of the wage boards was G
held.
16.11.2007 Notice under Sections 10(1) and 130 of the
Act was issued to all newspaper
establishments, working journalists, non-
journalists newspaper and news agency H
446 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A employees to make representation in writing
within eight weeks from the date of notice
stating the rates of wages which, in the
opinion of the capacity of the employer to pay
the same or to any other circumstance,
B whichever may seem relevant to them.
08.01.2008 Government made a reference to Wage
Board for fixing interim rate of wages in terms
of Section 13A of the 1955 Act.
c 12 & Third meeting of the Wage Boards held to
13.06.2008 discuss interim rates of wages
28.06.2008 Fourth meeting of the Wage Boards was held
to consider the issue of interim rates of
wages to the employees of the newspaper
D industry and gave its recommendation fixing
the interim rate of wages @30% of the basic
pay w.e.f. 08.01.2008
03.10.2008 Cabinet approved the proposal to grant
E interim rates of wages at the rate of 30% of
the basic wage to newspaper employees
w.e.f. 8th January, 2008.
24.10.2008 S.O. 2524(E) and S.O. 2525(E) notification on
interim rates of wages published in the
F Gazette of India extraordinary.
5-6.05.2009 Fifth meeting of Wage Boards
31.07.2009 Sixth meeting of Wage Boards
G 07.09.2009 Seventh meeting of Wage Boards
Oral hearings
6-10.10.2009 - Oral hearing in Jammu &
Kashmir
H 26-27 .10.2009 - Oral hearing at Chandigarh
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 447
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
8-9.11.2009 - Oral hearing at Patna A
14.11.2009 Eighth meeting of Wage Boards
Oral hearings
11-12.11.2009 - Oral hearing at Lucknow
23-24.11.2009 - Oral hearing at Ahmedabad B
8-9.12.2009 - Oral hearing at Hyderabad
11-13.12.2009 - Oral hearing at Chennai
18.12:2009 Ninth meeting of Wage Boards c
Oral hearings
29-30.12.2009 - Oral hearing at Bangalore
23.02.2010 Tenth meeting of Wage Boards
D
02.03.2010 In view of the fact that very few responses were
received to the detailed questionnaire
circulated by the Wage Board, it was
decided that a simplified questionnaire
requiring information about annual turnover, E
cost, etc. will be circulated to various
newspaper establishments registered with
PTI and INS. Accordingly, the simplified
questionnaire was sent to various news
establishments.
F
Oral hearings
13-14.03.2010 - Oral hearing at Jaipur
27-28.03.2010 - Oral hearing at Bhopal
8-10.04.2010 - Oral hearing at Mumbai and G
Pune
27-28.04.2010 Oral hearing at
Bhubaneshwar
07.05.2010 Eleventh meeting of Wage Boards H
448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A 30.06.2010 Twelfth meeting of Wage Boards
Oral hearings
12-13.07.2010 - Oral hearing at Kolkata
20-21.07.2010 - Oral hearing at Guwahati
B 26.07.2010 to 01.08.2010 - Oral hearing at
Delhi
17-19.08.2010 - Oral hearing at Delhi
06.09.2010 - Oral hearing at Delhi
c
05.07.2010 Summons dated 05.07.2010 issued under
Section 11 (3)(b) and Section 11 (8) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with
Section 3 of the 1955 Act.
D 21.09.2010 Thirteenth meeting of Wage Boards
22.09.2010 Fourteenth meeting of Wage Boards
07.12.2010 Draft report was circulated to all the members
of the Wage Board for their comments and
E views
20-24.12.2010 Meeting of the Wage Board
to discuss the draft report
30.12.2010 Notes of dissent were submitted by
F 1. Shri K.M. Sahni
2. Shri N.K. Trikha, Shri Vikram Rao, Shri
Suresh Akhouri (Representatives of working
journalists)
G 3. Shri Uma Shankar Mishra, Shri M.S.
Yadav, Shri M.C. Narasimhan
(Representatives of non-journalists)
4. Shri Prasanna Kumar
H 31.12.2010 Final Report submitted to Government."
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 449
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
50. The petitioners' main ground of challenge vis-a-vis the A
procedure adopted by the impugned Wage Boards is that they
were not given reasonable time to reflect on the issues.
However, we have carefully examined all the proceedings of the
Wage Boards and we are satisfied that the Wage Boards
conducted a series of meetings and gave ample opportunities B
to the employers. The employers were given opportunity of both
written and oral representations to make their point of view
known to the Board and consequently the decision making
process stands valid. In this respect, we are of the view that
the petitioners cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own C
wrong and impugn the recommendations of the Wage Boards
as not being based on their data when they eluded to submit
the said data in the first place.
51. In respect of the petitioners' argument that the
'Classification' of newspaper establishments and newspaper o
agencies adopted by the Wage Boards is arbitrary and not
supported by the majority, it is brought to our notice that a
perusal of the resolution adopted on 21.12.2010 shows that
representatives of employees agreed for 11 classifications and
representatives of employers opposed the said pattern of
classification. Later, the classification of the newspaper E
establishments was made into eight classes on the basis of
Gross Turnover:
Class Gross Revenue
F
I Rs. 1000 crore and above
I Rs. 500 crore and above but less thar
Rs. 1000 crore
Ill Rs. 100 crore and above but less than Rs
500 crore G
IV Rs. 50 crore and above but less than Rs.
100
,
crore
v Rs. 10 crore and above but less than Rs. 50
crore H
450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A VI Rs. 5 crore and above but less than Rs.
10 crore
VII Rs. 1 crore and above but less than Rs. 5 crore
VIII Less than Rs. 1 crore
B Therefore, if at all anybody is aggrieved by the recommendation
of the Wage Board to adopt eight classifications, it is' the
employees and not the employers. Further, no prejudice is
caused to the employers and they cannot make this as a
ground to challenge the report.
c
52. The petitioners also contended by relying upon two
resolutions passed by the Wage Board that the Wage Board
was not allowed to function independently and was treated with
contempt by the Secretariat of the Wage Board and the officials
of the Wage Board. One of the resolutions relied upon by the
D petitioners dealt with an issue pertaining to raising of exorbitant
travel bill. It is brought to our notice that it was in this context
that the Chairman and Members of the Wage Board expressed
their concern that issues pertaining to the Wage Board should
not be directly dealt with by the Ministry and it has to be referred
E to the Ministry by the Secretariat after obtaining the permission
of the Chairman. The other resolution/minutes record the
proceedings of the meeting with the Minister for Labour and
Employment. These two resolutions cannot be relied upon to .
contend that the Board was not allowed to function
F independently and was treated with contempt: These two
resolutions have no bearing on the ultimate recommendations
made by the Board and, thus, cannot be relied upon by the
petitioners to impugn the recommendations themselves.
53. Numerous such incidental contentions vis-a-vis
G procedure adopted by the Wage Boards were alleged which,
in our considered view, is not of such grave nature that it calls
for withdrawing the recommendations of Wage Boards. In this
light, after having exhaustively gone through the record of
proceedings and various written communications, we are fully
H satisfied that the Wage Boards proceedings had been
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 451
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
conducted and carried out in a legitimate approach and no A
decision of the Wage Board is perceived to having been taken
unilaterally or arbitrarily. Rather all decisions were reached in
a coherent manner in the presence of all the Wage Board
members after having processed various statistics and we find
no irregularity in the procedure adopted by the impugned Wage B
Boards.
Majithia Wage Boards overlooked the relevant aspects
and considered extraneous factors while drafting the
recommendations
c
54. It is the view of the petitioners that the recommendation
of Justice Majithia Wage Boards is defective and faulty and
deserves to be rejected at the outset as it overlooked the
relevant aspects and considered extraneous factors while
drafting the impugned report. The first ground on which the o
report is alleged to be defective is that the members of the
Wage Board failed to consider the crucial element of capacity
to pay of the indiv,idual newspaper establishments as it wrongly
premised its analysis of the capacity to pay of 'gross revenue'
while approving the impugned report. E
55. In Express Newspaper (P) Ltd case (Supra), this Court
held that the capacity of the newspaper industry to pay is one
of the essential circumstances to be taken into consideration
while fixing rates of wages under the Act. In that case, the
decision of the Wage Board was set aside on the ground that F
it failed to consider the capacity of the industry to pay the
revised rates of wages. Consequently, Section 10(2) of the Act
was inserted which gives the statutory recognition to the
requirement of taking into consideration the capacity of the
employer to pay. G
56. Chapter XIV, titled Capacity to pay of the Newspaper
industry (A Financial Assessment) of the Justice Majithia
Report, elaborately discusses on the aspect of capacity to pay.
However, it is the stand of the petitioners that although the H
452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014) 2 S.C.R.
A Report purportedly examines the capacity to pay, such
evaluation is directly contrary to the principles and accepted
material factors which the Report itself identifies as governing
a legally sound consideration of the capacity to pay. The
relevant portion of the report in pages 101 to 102 is as under:-
B "The gross revenue of newspaper establishments
comprises revenue through advertisements, circulation and
other sources relating to newspaper activities and
miscellaneous income accrued from investments, interests,
rent etc. The gross revenue can be taken as one of the
C indicators to judge the health of the newspaper
establishments. Strictly speaking several discounted
factors are required to be taken in to consideration from
the gross revenues to make actual assessments of the
capacity of the newspaper establishments. But in absence
D of such parameters, it was decided to rely broadly on
gross revenue."
57. The petitioners major point of reliance is surfaced on
the observation in the report which acknowledges that there are
other factors along with gross revenue which need to be
E considered for determining the capacity to pay of the
establishments which the report did not ultimately consider thus
it will be appropriate to reject the report.
58. On the other hand, it is the stand of the Union of India.
F that in the absence of availability of such parameters for the
assessment of capacity to pay of the newspaper
establishments, it is judicially accepted methodology to
determine the same on the basis of gross revenue and relied
on the observations in Indian Express Newspapers (Pvt.) Ltd.
G (supra):-
"16 ... In view of the amended definition of the "newspaper
establishment" under Section 2(d) which came into
operation retrospectively from the inception of the Act and
the Explanation added to Section 10(4), and in view ~urther
H of the fact that in clubbing the units of the establishment
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 453
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
together, the Board cannot be said to have acted contrary A
to the law laid down by this Court in Express Newspapers
case, the classification of the newspaper establishments
on all-India basis for the purpose of fixation of wages is
not bad in law. Hence it is not violative of the petitioners'
rights under Articles 19(1 )(a) and 19(1 )(g) of the B
Constitution. Financial capacity of an all-India newspaper
establishment has to be considered on the basis of the
gross revenue and the financial capacity of all the units
taken together. Hence, it cannot be said that the petitioner-
companies as all-India newspaper establishments are not c
viable whatever the financial incapacity of their individual
units. After amendment of Section 2(d) retrospectively read
with the addition of the Explanation to Section 10(4), the
old provisions can no longer be pressed into service to
contend against the grouping of the units of the all-India
0
establishments, into one class."
59. After perusing the relevant documents, we are satisfied
that comprehensive and detailed study has been carried out
by the Wage Board by collecting all the relevant material
information for the purpose of the Wage Revision. The E
recommendations are arrived at after weighing the pros and
cons of various methods in the process and principles of the
Wage Revision in the modern era. It cannot be held that the
wage structure recommended by the Majithia Wage Board is
unreasonable. F
60. The other issue in regard to which there was elaborate
submission is the issue pertaining to recommendations of the
Wage Board in regard to news agencies. It is the stand of the
petitioners that even though this Court had expressly held that
news agencies, including PTI, stood on a separate footing from G
newspapers inter alia because they did not have any
· advertisement revenue and, hence, the wages will have to be
fixed separately and independently for the news agencies, the
impugned Wage Boards failed to take note of the said relevant
aspect. H
454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A 61. Learned counsel for the respondent contended by
stating that capacity to pay of news agencies was determined
on the basis of the capacity to earn of the news agencies iii
every Wage Board. It was further submitted that the burden of
revised wages was met by the news agencies on every
B occasion by revising the subscription rate. Thereby submitting
that the recommendation vis-a-vis the news agencies was a
reasoned one.
62. This Court has a limited jurisdiction to look into this
C aspect. The interference is allowed to a limited extent to
examine the question as to whether the Wage Board has
considered the capacity to pay of the News Agencies. It would
be inapposite for this Court to question the decision of the
specialized board on merits especially when the Board was
constituted for this sole purpose.
D
63. The second point of contention of petitioners is of
introducing new concepts such as 'variable pay' in an arbitrary
manner. Regarding variable pay recommended by the Majithia
Wage Board, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
·E there is no basis for providing payment of variable pay and
equally there is no basis for providing variable pay as a
percentage of basic pay which mak~s the payment of variable
pay open-ended. According to them, the recommendation in
this regard is totally unreasonable, irrational and places an extra
F and unnecessary burden on the newspaper establishments.
Consequently, it was asserted that there is complete non-
application of mind to insert the so-called variable pay concept
(similar to Grade Pay of Sixth Pay Commission) in the Majithia
Wage Board's recommendation, even though the basic
G conditions, objectives and anomalies are absent.
64. However, the stand of the respondents is that there is
gradation of variable pay and allowances according to the size ·
of the establishments wherein smaller establishments are
required to pay at a lower rate compared to larger
H establishments. It may be pointed out that in the Manisana
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF !NOIA & ORS. 455
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
Wage Board, which is the predecessor to the Majithia Board, A
did recommend a similar dispensation though it did not
specifically call it variable pay. Manisana Wage Board
recommended a certain percentage of basic pay for the
newspaper employees, which is similar to variable pay in the
Majithia Wage Board recommendations. While such B
dispensation was included in the basic pay in the Manisana
Wage Board instead of being shown separately, the Majithia
Wage Board categorized "basic pay" and "variable pay"
separately. Accordingly, the concept of "variable pay" is not
newly introduced, though the terminology may have differed in c
Manisana and Majithia Wage Boards. The Wage Boards have
followed well-settled norms while making recommendations
about variable pay. Further, the explanation to Section 2(eee)
which defines "wages" specifically includes within the term
"wages" "new allowances", if any, of any description fixed from
0
time to time. Therefore, the Wage Board was well within its
jurisdiction to recommend payment of 'variable pay'.
65. There was also a submission on behalf of the
petitioners that Majithia Wage Board has simply copied the
recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, which E
is not correct. We have carefully scrutinized all the details. It is
clear that the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay
Commission have not been blindly imported/relied upon by the
Majithia Wage Board. The concept of 'variable pay' contained
in the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission F
has been incorporated into the Wage Board recommendations
only to ensure that the wages of the newspaper employees are
at par with those employees working in other Government
sectors. Such incorporation was made by the Majithia Wage
Board after careful consideration, in order to ensure equitable G
treatment to employees of newspaper establishments, and it
was well within its rights to do so.
66. It is further seen that the Wage Board has
recommended grant of 100% neutralization of dearness
allowance. Fifth Pay Commission granted the same in 1996. H
456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A Since then, public sector undertakings, banks and even the
private sector are all granting 100% neutralization of dearness
allowance. The reference to decisions prior to 1995 is
irrelevant.
B 67. Lastly, the contention of the petitioners that the Wage
Boards have not taken into account regional variations in
submitting their recommendations is also not correct. It is clear
from the report that the Wage Boards have categorized the
HRA and Transport Allowance into X. Y and Z category regions,
which reflects that the cost on accommodation and transport
C in different regions in the country was considered. Furthermore,
there is gradation of variable pay and allowances according to
the size of the establishments wherein smaller establishments
are required to pay those at a lower rate compared to larger
establishments. Hence, we are satisfied that the Wage Boards
D followed certain well laid down principles and norms while
making recommendations.
68. It is true that the Wage Boards have made some
general suggestions for effective implementation of Wage
E Awards which is given separately in Chapter 21 of the Report
of the Majithia Wage Boards of Working Journalists and Non-
Journalists Newspaper and News Agency Employees. It is
brought to our notice that the Government has not accepted all
these suggestions including those pertaining to retirement age,
F pension, paternity leave, etc. as these are beyond the main
objective for which the Wage Boards were constituted.
Regarding fixation of pay, assured career development, there
have been proposals in the recommendations which are in the
manner of providing higher pay scale after completion of certain
G number of years which cannot be treated as time bound
promotion. Similarly, the establishments have also b_een
categorized on the basis of their turnover, thus, taking into
consideration the capacity of various establishments to pay.
69. It is useful to refer Section 12 of the Act which deals
H wi.th the powers of Central Government to enforce
ABP PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 457
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
recommendations of the Wage Board. It reads as under: A
"12 - Powers of Central Government to enforce
recommendations of the Wage Board
(1) As soon as may be, after the receipt of the
recommendations of the Board, the Central Government B
shall make an order in terms of the recommendations or
subject to such modifications, if any, as it thinks fit, being
modifications which, in the opinion of the Central
Government, do not effect important alterations in the
character of the recommendations. C
(2) Notwithstanding anything containedin sub-section (1),
the Central Government may, if it thinks fit,--
(a) make such modifications in the recommendations, not
being modifications of the nature referred to in sub-section o
(1 ), as it thinks fit:
Provided that before making any such modifications, the
Central Government shall cause notice to be given to all
persons likely to be affected thereby in such manner as
may be prescribed, and shall take into account any · E
representations which they may make in this behalf in
writing; or
(b) refer the recommendations or any part thereof to the
Board, in which case, the Central Government shall F
consider its further recommendations and make an order
either in terms of the recommendations or with such
modifications of the nature referred to in· sub-section (1)
as it thinks fit.
(3) Every order made by the Central Government under this G
. section shall be published in the Official Gazette together
with the recommendations of the Board relating to the
order and the order shall come into operation on the date
pf publication or on such date, whether prospectively or
retrospectively, as may be specified in the order." H
458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 2 S.C.R.
A 70. Thus, it is the prerogative of the Central Government
to accept or reject the recommendations of the Wage Boards.
There is no scope for hearing the parties once again by the
Central Government while accepting or modifying the
recommendations, except that the modifications are of such
B nature which alter the character of the recommendations and
such modification is likely to affect the parties. The mere fact
that in the present case, the Government has not accepted a
few recommendations will not automatically affect the validity
of the entire report. Further, the Government has not accepted
c all those suggestions including those pertaining to retirement
age, etc. as these are beyond the mandate for which the Wage
Boards were constituted. Regarding fixation of pay, assured
career development, there have been proposals in the
recommendations which are in the manner of providing higher
pay scale after completion of certain number of years which
0
cannot be treated as time bound promotion.
71. Accordingly, we hold that the recommendations of the
Wage Boards are valid in law, based on genuine and
acceptable considerations and there is no valid ground for
E interference under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
72. Consequently, all the writ petitions are dismissed with
no order as to costs.
73. In view of our conclusion and dismissal of all the writ
F petitions, the wages as revised/determined shall be payable
from 11.11.2011 when the Government of India notified the
recommendations of the Majithia Wage Boards. All the arrears
up to March, 2014 shall be paid to all eligible persons in four
equal instalments within a period of one year from today and
G continue to pay the revised wages from April, 2014 onwards.
74. In view of the disposal of the writ petitions, the contempt
petition is closed.
H R.P. Petitions dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Constitutional validity"Sign in to search