Management Of M/S Neutral Publishing ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 274 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Management Of M/S Neutral Publishing ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 19 January, 2026

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

                                            2026:JHHC:1537

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
           W.P.(L) No. 1141 of 2025
                     .........

Management of M/s Neutral Publishing House Limited (Prabhat Khabhar) through its General Managr (HR) Shri Vikash Kumar, aged about 42 years, son of Shri R.S.P. Singh, r/o 15-P, Kokar Industrial Area, P.O. Kokar, P.S. Sadar, District-Ranchi. ..... Petitioner (s) Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Dept of Labour, Employment, Training and Skill Development, Govt of Jharkhand.

2.The Labour Commissioner, Dept of Labour, Employment, Training and Skill Development, Govt of Jharkhand.

3.The Under Secretary, Labour Commissioner Office, Dept of Labour, Employment, Training and Skill Development, Govt of Jharkhand.

Respondent no.1 to 3 are having their office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O.& P.S-Doranda, District - Ranchi.

4. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Govt. of Jharkhand having its office at Sanyukt Sharm Bhawan, Bartand, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad.

5. Shri Ajay Kumar Singh, Son of Shri Bhola Nath Singh, r/o House no. 84/A, Camp-02, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro Steel City, Town, Bokaro Steel City, District-

Bokaro.                         ..... Respondent(s)
                     With


                     .........

Management of M/s Neutral Publishing House Limited (Prabhat Khabhar) through its General Managr (HR) Shri Vikash Kumar, aged about 42 years, son of Shri R.S.P. Singh, r/o 15-P, Kokar Industrial Area, P.O. Kokar, P.S. Sadar, District-Ranchi. ..... Petitioner (s) Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Dept of Labour, Employment, Training and Skill Development, Govt of Jharkhand.

2.The Labour Commissioner, Dept of Labour, Employment, Training and Skill Development, Govt of Jharkhand.

3.The Under Secretary, Labour Commissioner Office, Dept of Labour, Employment, Training and Skill Development, Govt of Jharkhand.

Respondent no.1 to 3 are having their office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O.& P.S-Doranda, District - Ranchi.

2026:JHHC:1537

4. The Labour Superintendent, Govt of Jharkhand having its office at Sitramdera, P.O. & P.S-Sitaramdera, Jamshedpur District-East Singhbhum.

5. Shri Krishnakant Singh, s/o Shri Narad Singh, r/o Quarter no. 1146, Street no. 28, Sector-8/C, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District-Bokaro.

..... Respondent(s) .........

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN .......

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharti, Adv For the Resp. No.5 : Mr. Kumar Harsh, Adv For the Resp.-State : Mr. Harsh Preet Singh, A.C. to G.P.-V' (in W.P.(L) No. 1147 of 2025) Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-II (in W.P.(L) No. 1141 of 2025) .........

C.A.V. ON 01/12/2025 PRONOUNCED ON:19/01/2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Both these cases involve common questions of law

and are being disposed of by a common order.

Brief Facts:

3. The Petitioner in this case assails the Reference

Notification No. 2231 dated 26.12.2024. This notification

referred the dispute to the Labour Court, Jamshedpur, to

decide if the denial of the Rs. 1.78 Crore claim of the

Respondent, Ajay Kumar Singh was justified.

The case revolves around a claim of unpaid wages

amounting to Rs. 1,78,56,868/- made by the employee,

Ajay Kumar Singh, under the recommendations of the

Majithia Wage Board. The Petitioner challenges the

jurisdiction of the Labour authorities in Jamshedpur to

2026:JHHC:1537

entertain the claim and the subsequent notification

referring the matter to the Labour Court.

Ajay Kumar Singh, working as a Senior

Correspondent, filed an application on 23.12.2023 before

the Deputy Labour Commissioner (DLC), Bokaro. He

claimed arrears under the Majithia Wage Board and raised

issues regarding his transfer from Chaibasa to

Jamshedpur. Since the employee was last posted in

Jamshedpur (West Singhbhum), the DLC Bokaro

transferred the matter to the Additional Labour

Commissioner, Jamshedpur, vide letter dated 10.02.2024,

citing lack of territorial jurisdiction.

The Labour Superintendent, Jamshedpur, issued a

notice on 20.03.2024 asking the Petitioner management to

appear. On 27.04.2024, the Petitioner appeared and filed a

preliminary objection. They argued that under a

Government Notification dated 21.04.2016, the power to

deal with wage claims under Section 17(1) of the Working

Journalists Act, 1955 was delegated solely to the Labour

Commissioner, Jharkhand. Therefore, the Labour

Superintendent or DLC Jamshedpur had no jurisdiction to

hear the matter.

The Labour Superintendent, Jamshedpur, sent a

report (Letter No. 2489) dated 05.08.2024 to the State

2026:JHHC:1537

Government. He noted that the management disputed the

claim and the amount. Consequently, he recommended

that the dispute be referred to the Labour Court for

adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act, as settlement

was not possible.

Acting on the recommendation, the State Government

issued Reference Notification No. 2231 dated 26.12.2024.

This notification referred the dispute to the Labour Court,

Jamshedpur to decide if the denial of the Rs. 1.78 Crore

claim was justified. The terms of reference reads as follows:

"Whether, denial of payment of Rupees 1,78,56,868 (One Crore Seventy Eight Lakh Fifty Six Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Eight) claimed by an employee of Prabhat Khabar (Jamshedpur) Unit Shree Ajay Kumar Singh, under recommendation made by Majethia Wage Board, by his Management, M/s Neutral Publishing House Limited, 15-p Kokar Industrial Area (Prabhat Khabar) is justified? If not, What relief he is intitled to"?

4. Learned counsel for the respondent- State argues that

the Labour Superintendent acted within his powers as an

"Inspector" appointed under Section 17-B of the Act (vide

notification dated 27.05.2015). They assert that since the

amount was disputed, Section 17(1) (recovery of admitted

dues) did not apply, and the State correctly referred the

matter to the Labour Court under Section 17(2) for

adjudication. No separate counter affidavit has been filed by

2026:JHHC:1537

the contesting employee and his council adopts the above

stand in support of the notification.

5. In this case the Petitioner seeks the quashing of

notification No. 2068 dated 29/11/2024, alleging that the

reference of dispute was in contravention of the provisions

contained in Section 17(1) and 17(2) of the Working

Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of

Service) & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 ("Working

Journalists Act, 1955").

The Respondent No. 5, Krishnakant Singh, filed his

claim dated 18/10/2023 before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner, Dhanbad, and also addressed it to the

Business Head of Prabhat Khabar, asserting that he was

not paid his salary as per the recommendations of the

Majithia Wage Board.

6. The Petitioner-Management was served notice by the

Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad, to submit

documents and participate in the enquiry on 17/11/2023.

On this date, the Petitioner, Management submitted its

reply, raising preliminary objection that the Assistant

Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad, lacked jurisdiction to

entertain the complaint of the Respondent-employee, as the

State Government, by notification dated 24/01/2016, had

2026:JHHC:1537

conferred powers under Section 17(1) of the Working

Journalists Act, 1955 only to the Labour Commissioner of

Jharkhand. Therefore, the Assistant Labour Commissioner

was not the competent authority under Section 17(1) of the

Working Journalists Act, 1955 and had no jurisdiction to

conciliate any claim for wages arising out of or in

connection with the Majithia Wage Board.

The contesting employee, Krishnakant Singh, has filed

his Counter Affidavit and submits that there is no illegality

in referring the claim for adjudication to the Labour Court,

as Section 17(1) of the Act of 1955 applies only when the

money payable to the employee is admitted. Only in

undisputed or admitted claims; the Labour Commissioner,

who is the notified authority under Section 17(1) of the

Working Journalists Act, 1955, would issue a certificate for

recovering such unpaid wages as arrears of land revenue

under the provisions of the Bihar/Jharkhand Public

Demands Recovery Act.

7. Learned counsel for the Respondents No. 1 to 4 have

also supported the case of the Respondent employee and

referred to Section 17-B of the Working Journalists Act,

which empowers the State Government to appoint

inspectors for the purpose of enforcing legal obligations

under the Act. The State Respondents have also filed a copy

2026:JHHC:1537

of notification dated 27/05/2015, by which a list of officers

was appointed as "inspectors" for the purposes of the

Working Journalists Act, 1955, and the Assistant Labour

Commissioner, Dhanbad, is among the officers mentioned

in this notification. Furthermore, the provisions of Section

17(1) of the Working Journalists Act are immaterial at this

stage, as the reference was made by exercising powers

under Section 17(2) of the said Act of 1955.

8. The notification No. 2068 dated 29.1.2024 which is

under challenge has referred the following dispute to the

Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad :-

"Whether denial of payment of Rs. 59,79,534/- (Fifty-Nine Lakhs Seventy-Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty Four) claimed by Shree Krishnakant Singh, Q.No. 1146, Street-28, Section-8/C Bokaro under recommendation made by Majithia Wage Board. By his Management, M/s Neutral Publishing House Limited, Prabhat Khabar, Dhanbad is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to"?

Findings:

9. There are common questions of law and similar facts in both the above cases which are dealt with together in the following paragraphs.

10. Both notification under challenge record that the

Governor of Jharkhand is of the opinion that dispute exists

between the M/s Neutral Publishing House Limited,

Prabhat Khabar, Dhanbad and its workmen and the

2026:JHHC:1537

decision is of the Governor of Jharkhand under Section 17

(2) of the Working Journalists Act, 1955 is to refer the

dispute. The Management has rooted its objection

regarding jurisdiction based on the notification issued

under Section 17(1) by which only the Labour

Commissioner has been empowered to take action.

It would be useful to extract the statutory provisions

before analyzing the interplay and scope of Sections 17(1) &

17(2) of the Working Journalists Act, 1955, in the context

of the present dispute.

"Section 17. Recovery of money due from an employer (1) Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf or in case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector, and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon allocation made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for the adjudication under that Act or law.

(3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in sub-section(1)."

11. The notifications of reference assailed in these cases

2026:JHHC:1537

are under Section 17(2), which confers powers on the State

Government to refer any question or dispute relating to

claim of wages. The notifications which are under challenge

were issued by the order of the Governor of Jharkhand and

therefore, it is clearly established that the reference was

made by the State Government. The Petitioner cannot

assail a notification issued by the State Government which

has the approval of the Governor of the State. The State

Government exercises executive powers through the

Governor as per Article 154 of the Constitution which is

quoted below:

"154. Executive power of State:

(1)The executive power of the State shall be vested in the Governor and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with this Constitution. (2)Nothing in this article shall--

(a)be deemed to transfer to the Governor any functions conferred by any existing law on any other authority; or

(b)prevent Parliament or the Legislature of the State from conferring by law functions on any authority subordinate to the Governor."

12. The notifications under challenge record that the

Governor has consented to refer the dispute regarding

computation of salary/wage and there is absolutely no

illegality in such reference notifications. The Petitioner's

2026:JHHC:1537

counsel strenuously argues that this reference could be at

the behest of the Labour Commissioner of Jharkhand, who

is the only notified authority under Section 17 (1) of the

Working Journalists Act, 1955. No other authority can

exercise powers under Section 17 of the Working

Journalists Act, 1955.

It was argued that the Respondents No. 1 to 4 and

particularly, the Assistant Labour Commissioner has no

power to enforce attendance of a witness or to examine

them on oath. Reliance has also been placed on a decision

of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kasturi &

Sons (Private. Ltd) vs. Shri N. Salivateeswaran1 in

which in paragraph No. 8 records that the power to enforce

attendance of witness or to issue commission or an order of

discovery and inspection cannot be exercised by an

authority under Section 17 of the Working Journalists Act,

1955. Paragraph no. 08 culls out the ratio of this decision

as follows:

"8. It is significant that the State Government or the specific authority mentioned in Section 17 has not been clothed with the normal powers of a court or a tribunal to hold a formal enquiry. It is true that Section 3, sub-section (1) of the Act provides for the application of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to or in relation to working journalists subject to sub-section (2); but this provision is in substance intended to make working journalists workmen within the meaning of the main Industrial Disputes Act. This section

AIR 1958 SC 507

2026:JHHC:1537

cannot be read as conferring on the State Government or the specified authority mentioned under Section 17 power to enforce attendance of witnesses, examine them on oath, issue commission or pass orders in respect of discovery and inspection such as can be passed by the boards, courts or tribunals under the Industrial Disputes Act, It is obvious that the relevant provisions of Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which confer the said powers on the conciliation officers, boards, courts and tribunals cannot be made applicable to the State Government or the specified authority mentioned under Section 17 merely by virtue of Section 3(1) of the Act."

13. The above decision is completely out of context as

there is no material to show that evidence was recorded or

the Management was compelled to file documents. The

Employer in this case repudiated the claims and raised

objection to the jurisdiction of the authority issuing notice

to it. The purpose of issuing notice on receiving a claim

from one or more employees was to ascertain whether there

are points of difference or any disputes regarding

computation of wages as per Majethia Wage Board

recommendations. Moreover, such exercise was conducted

by the Assistant Labour Commissioner/Deputy Labour

Commissioner as "inspector" appointed under Section 17 -

B of the Working Journalists Act, 1955. The judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court therefore, does not apply to the

facts of this case. The moment there was a dispute

regarding entitlement, the authority without adjudicating

the claim referred it to the Secretary, Department of

2026:JHHC:1537

Labour, Employment, Training & Skill Development,

Government of Jharkhand for following the mandate of

Section 17(2) of the Act of 1955. There is no procedural

error here which justifies interference.

14. The Petitioner's next contention is that an individual

dispute cannot be entertained under the provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and it cannot be construed

as an "industrial dispute" under Section 2(k) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Section 2A of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

This secondary objection regarding individual dispute

is also unsustainable as Section 17(2) of the Working

Journalists Act, provided a special mechanism which

requires adjudication by the Labour Court for any

individual claim for wages. Section 17(2) opens with the

words "If any question arises as to the amount due under

this Act to a newspaper employee...." which leaves no doubt

in the mind that this procedure of referring any question or

dispute can also be in relation to an individual newspaper

employee. Ordinarily, a claim for wages or higher wages or

difference of wages would be an 'industrial dispute' only if

espoused by a Trade Union. Individual workman can raise

industrial dispute only in cases of termination of service as

the policy of the Act of 1947 was collective bargaining and

2026:JHHC:1537

industrial peace and harmony. An individual workman

cannot raise a dispute relating to wages under the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, the impediment of

raising such disputes at the instance of an individual

newspaper employee is removed by Section 17(2) of the

Working Journalists Act, 1955 which authorizes the Labour

Court to decide any dispute regarding wages payable to a

newspaper employee.

15. In view of the above discussion there is no illegality in

referring the dispute relating to claim of wages to the

Labour Courts by both notifications and the action of the

Respondent - State Government calls for no interference.

The notifications under challenge in both these cases

cannot be quashed. The Petitioner and contesting

employees are at liberty to raise all factual and legal

grounds available to them as no opinion has been

expressed on the merits of the dispute.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated:19 /01/2026 Amardeep/ A.F.R

Uploaded 21/01/2026