M/S. AWAZ PRAKASHAN PRIVATE LIMITEDversusPRAMOD KUMAR PUJARI

_,,
                  MIS. AWAZ PRAKASHAN PRIVATE LIMITED                             A
                                            V.

                            PRAMOD KUMAR PUJARI

                                   APRIL 2, 2003

                                                                                  B
        [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND P. VENKATARAMA REDD!, JJ.]


           Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:

             Retrenchment-Reporter ofa newspaper-Retrenchment of-Challenged C
      as effected without complying with provisions of the Act-Labour Court ordered
      reinstatement-Employer's contention before High Court that Industrial
      Disputes Act had no application to the case rejected-Held, in view of
      provisions of ss. 3 and I 1 of Working Journalists and other Newspaper
      Employees (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, it
      cannot be said that the Board constituted under 1955 Act had the jurisdiction D
      and not the Labour Court-The Board constituted uls 1I of 1955 Act is not
      a substitute/or Labour Court-The Board is mainly for considering the working
      conditions of the newspaper employees and also to fix rates of wages of
      working journalists from time to time-The provisions contained in the 1955
      Act do not say that all disputes relating to working journalists shall be E
      considered and decided by the Board-The Board can decide only those
      disputes which are re/erred to it-Besides, the employer did not raise any
      objection before Labour Court as to its jurisdiction to decide the dispute-Nor
      was the reference order challenged 011 this ground-High Court rightly
      dismissed employer's writ petition-Working Journalists and Other Newspapers
      (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, I955-Ss. 3 and F
      IJ.

           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7458 of2000.

           From the Judgment and Order dated 13.1.1999 of the Patna High Court
      in LPA 51/98(R).                                                            G
           S.K. Sinha for the Appellant.

           The following Order of the Court was delivered.


                                            347
                                                                                  H
    348                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (2003] 3 S.C.R.

A          The appellant challenges the Judgment of the Patna High Court in LPA
    No. 5 I of I999 (R). The appellant was running a printing press and was
    publishing a daily newspaper by name Awaz. The respondent was a Reporter
    of the newspaper at Ranchi. Ac<:ording to the appellant, he closed down the
    printing press and stopped the publication of the said newspaper and, therefore,
B   the services of the respondent were not required and he was retrenched from
    service with effect from 1.7.89. The respondent contended that his
    retrenchment was effected without complying with the provisions contained
    in the industrial Disputes Act, 194 7 and he sought a reference under that Act.
    The appellant did not appear before the Labour Court to contest the
    proceedings. The Labour Court at Ranchi, in Ref. Case No. 12 of 1992,
C   passed an award directing the appellant to reinstate the respondent with back
    wages. According to the appellant, he came to know of the award only on 28.
    9. 1994 and thereafter he filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court.
    Learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition mainly on the ground of
    delay. The appellants contention that the provisions contained in the I. D. Act
    had no application was rejected by the learned Single Judge. Aggrieved by
D   the same, the appellant preferred an LPA and the Division Bench also found
    that the pleas raised by the appellant were not maintainable and the LPA was
    dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

          We heard the appellant's Counsel. The main contention urged by the
E appellant's Counsel is that respondent was a working Journalist and, therefore,
    the award passed by the Labour Court under the provisions of the I. D. Act
    was without jurisdiction and that provisions contained in the Working
    Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and
    Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 are applicable in his case and the Board
    constituted under the provisions of the said Act alone had jurisdiction to deal
F   with the question of retrenchment or removal of the newspaper employees or
    Working Journalists from service. The appellant's Counsel relied on Section
    3 and section 11 of the Act which read as follows:-

    "3. Act 14 of 1947 to apply to working journalists-
G          (1) The provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as in force
                for the time being, shall subject to the modification specified in
              · sub-section (2), apply to, or in relation to working journalists as
                they apply to, or in relation to, workmen within the meaning of
                that Act.
H           (2) Section 25F of the aforesaid Act, in its application to working
          AWAZ PRAKASHAN PRIVATE LIMITED v. P.K. PUJARI                       349

              journalists, shall be construed as if in clause (a) thereof, for the    A
              period of notice referred to therein in relation to the retr.enchment
              of a workman, the following periods of notice in relation to the
              retrenchment of a working journalist had been substituted nam~ly-
        (a)six months, in the case of an editor, and
        (b )three months, in the case of any other working journalist.                B

 11. Powers and procedure of the Board. -

        (I) Subject to the provisions, contained in sub-section (2), the Board
              may exercise all or any of the powers which an Industrial Tribunal
              constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, exercises for C
              the adjudication of an industrial dispute referred to it and shall,
              subject to the provisions contained in this Act, and the rules, if
              any, made thereunder, have power to regulate its own procedure.
        (2) Any representations made to the Board and any documents
            furnished to it by way of evidence shall be open to inspection on         D
            payment of such fee as may be prescribed by any person interested
            in the matter.
         (3) If, far any reason, a vacancy occurs in the office of Chairman or
             any other member of the Board, the Central Government shall
             fill the vacancy by appointing another person thereto in                 E
             accordance with the provisions of Section 9 and any proceeding
             may be continued before the Board so reconstituted from the
             stage at which the vacancy occurred. "
                                                            (Emphasis supplied)

        On a close perusal of the above provisions, it is clear that the contention F
  raised by the appellant has no force. The Board constituted by the Central
  Government can decide only those disputes which are referred to the Board.
  Section 11 of the said Act further says that in case of any such reference, the
. Board may exercise all or any of the powers which are vested in industrial
  Tribunal constituted under the I. D. Act, 1947, and the rules framed thereunder. G
  The provisions contained in the Act do not say that all disputes relating to
  Working Jouranalists shall be considered and decided by the Board. The
  Board constituted by the Central Government is mainly for considering the
  working conditions of the newspaper employees and also to fix rates of
  wages of working Journalists from time to time. The Board constituted under
  Section 11 is not a substitute for Labour Court. Under the Act the Board H
    350                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2003] 3 S.C.R.
A would consist of 10 person-3 persons representing the employer, 3 persons
    representing the working employee and 4 other independent person, one of
    whom shall be a person who is or has been a Judge of a High Court and who
    shall be appointed by the Government as the Chairman thereof. The contention
    of the appellant that respondent being a Working Journalist, the present dispute
B   relating to his retrenchment should have been referred to this Board has no
    force and it is only to be rejectt>d.
                                                                                       l
           Incidentally, it may be mentioned that the appellant did not raise any
    objection before the Labour court as to its jurisdiction to decide the dispute
    relating to the retrenchment of the respondent. The Reference Order was not
C   challenged by the appellant by contending that the Labour Court had no
    jurisdiction to decide the question. The appellant challenged the award passed
    by the Labour Court belatedly and the appellant's Writ Petition has been
    rightly rejected by the High Court.

           The Civil Appeal is without any merits and the same is dismissed.
D There will be no order as to costs.
    R.P.                                                        Appeal dismissed.