Nai Dunia ( A Unit Of Jagran ... vs Anil Samadhia
2021 Latest Caselaw 7807 MP

        THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                   1

                       M.P.No.3307/2021
               Nai Dunia & Anr. Vs. Anil Samadhia

                       M.P.No.3648/2021
          Nai Dunia & Anr. Vs. Shriroman Singh Tomar

                       M.P.No.3650/2021
          Nai Dunia & Anr. Vs. Subhash Kumar Tripathi

                       M.P.No.3653/2021
              Nai Dunia & Anr. Vs. Sandeep Pathak

                      M.P.No.3654/2021
        Nai Dunia & Anr. Vs. Ganesh Kulshreshtha & Anr.

                       M.P.No.3656/2021
             Nai Dunia & Anr. Vs. Prabhat Bhatnagar

                       M.P.No.3657/2021
              Nai Dunia & Anr. Vs. Anamika Mishra

                      M.P.No.3659/2021
         Nai Dunia & Anr. Vs. Milind Bhindwale & Anr.

                       M.P.No.3660/2021
             Nai Dunia & Anr. Vs. Sarvesh Bhatnagar

                       M.P.No.3662/2021
             Nai Dunia & Anr. Vs. Mayaram Mishra

Gwalior Bench Dated; 25.11.2021

      Shri Sanjay Kaushal, learned senior counsel with Shri Kuldeep

Bhargav and Shri Manoj Dubey, learned counsel for petitioners.

      Shri K.N. Gupta, learned senior counsel with Shri Navnidhi

Padarya, learned counsel for respondent employee.

Heard on admission and interlocutory application vide

I.A.13214/2021.

1. Regard being had to the similitude of the facts and arising out of THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

the awards dated 08/19-08-2019 passed by the Labour Court

No.1, Gwalior, common order is being passed and for

convenience's sake, facts of Miscellaneous Petition

No.3307/2021 have been taken for consideration.

2. The instant miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India has been preferred at the instance of

petitioners/employer being crestfallen by award dated 08-08-

2019 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.1, Gwalior

(vide Annexure P/1) whereby reference under Section 17(2) of

The Working Journalists and Other News Paper Employees

(Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,

1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1955") has been

decided and amount of Rs.27,54,022/- has been awarded to the

employee (awarded amount differs in each case) with the

direction to the employer to pay the same within one month

along with Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

3. Precisely stated facts of the case are that respondent/News Paper

Employee filed an application claiming the benefit of Majithia

Wage Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Wage Board")

before the Deputy Labour Commissioner. Employer was put to

notice in which claim was resisted by employer on various

grounds. The Deputy Labour Commissioner apprised the State

Government about the dispute and in turn the Government sent THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

the reference for adjudication before the labour Court. The

legality, validity and propriety of the reference made to the

labour Court by the State Government under Section 17(2) of

the Act, 1955 was put to challenge by the petitioners (in some

other identical cases) before High Court of Madhya Pradesh,

Bench at Indore by way of Writ Petition No.16209/2018,

16178/2018, 16185/2018, 16198/2018 (Nai Dunia Vs. State of

M.P. and others) and the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 25-

07-2018 decided the case in which reference made was found to

be valid and writ petitions were dismissed. In line of the said

order, bunch of writ petitions; which were pending before this

Court (Gwalior Bench) also got disposed of vide order dated 13-

12-2018 in the light of order dated 25-07-2018 as referred

above.

4. It further appears that taking exception to the order passed by

learned Single Judge, certain writ appeals were filed and

Division Bench by way of bunch of Writ Appeals (vide

No.1858/2018 and other appeals) vide order dated 09-05-2019

decided the said bunch in which order of learned Single Judge

was affirmed and no fault was found in the order of reference

passed by the State Government.

5. It further appears from the submissions and pleadings that both

the parties appeared before the labour Court and labour Court THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

after considering the pleadings/evidence led/submissions

advanced, passed the impugned awards dated 08-08-2019 which

are being challenged by petitioners under Article 227 of the

Constitution.

6. It further appears that meanwhile employees of petitioners filed

Revenue Recovery Certificate (RRC) proceedings, pursuant to

the awards dated 08/19-08-2019 and they were pending

execution before the concerned authority, therefore, employees

preferred petitions for execution of award in which Division

Bench of this Court in writ petition No.16060/2021 passed

certain directions including the order dated 04-10-2021

wherein Court granted further time till 31st December, 2021 to

the concerned authority to execute the RRC and ensure the

benefits flowing out of the award and matter is directed to be

taken up in second week of January, 2022 for compliance.

7. With this factual backdrop, it is the submission of learned senior

counsel appearing for petitioners that the application preferred

by respondent was purportedly under Section 17(1) of the Act,

1955 and therefore, Deputy Labour Commissioner/State

Government erred in making reference to labour Court under

Section 17(2) of the Act, 1955. Learned senior counsel

appearing for petitioners laid much emphasis on the point of

delay and laches as according to him, Wage Board gave its THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

recommendations in 2011 and Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld

the recommendations of the Wage Board way back in 2014,

therefore, reference made thereafter in 2017 suffers from delay

and laches.

8. It is further submitted that when the employees adopted the

mode as per clause 20(j) of the Wage Board recommendations

about acceptance of existing pay scale and emoluments then

they waived their rights as per doctrine of Waiver to reagitate

the issue. He relied upon judgment of Apex Court in the matter

of Avishek Raja and others Vs. Sanjay Gupta, (2017) 8 SCC

435. Since no doubt regarding amount due exist, therefore,

ignoring this aspect labour Court caused illegality and

perversity.

9. No other arguments were advanced and learned senior counsel

fairly submits that he reserves his arguments further for final

hearing.

10. Respondent caused his appearance and filed reply in which he

contested the case with equal vehemence. At the outset, learned

senior counsel appearing for respondent referred the scope of

Article 227 of Constitution and while relying upon different

pronouncements made by Hon'ble Apex Court from time to time

stressed upon the limited scope of jurisdiction under Article 227

of Constitution. He relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

Court in the matter of Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State

Warehousing Corporation, (2010) 3 SCC 192, Iswarlal

Mohanlal Thakkar Vs. Paschim Gujarat Vij Company

Limited and another, (2014) 6 SCC 434 and ABP Private

Limited and another Vs. Union of India and others, (2014) 3

SCC 327. He stressed over the submission that scope of

jurisdiction of High Court vis-a-vis findings of labour

Court/Tribunal is limited. Court below after due consideration

and evidence led by the parties came to a conclusion which is

just and proper, needs no interference.

11. Through various provisions of the Act, 1955, learned senior

counsel placed reliance upon Section 13 of the Act, 1955 to

submit that statute gives entitlement to the employee to wages at

rates not less than those specified in the order of Central

Government under Section 12.

12. It is submitted that once the scope of reference and its validity

has already been decided and when execution is going on

against employer, then petition itself suffers from delay and

laches and deserves dismissal.

13. Heard the rival contentions and perused the documents

appended thereto.

14. It is a case where respondent/employee is seeking the benefits of

recommendations of Majithia Wage Board. So far as scope and THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

validity of reference is concerned, Coordinate Bench and

Division Bench of this Court has gone into detail and thereafter

found the reference to be valid and proper. From the pleadings

and submissions, it appear that no challenge to the said order has

been made and therefore, order dated 09-05-2019 passed by

Division Bench attained finality. Once the reference found to be

valid then prima facie for deciding the instant interim

application, maintainability of reference to labour Court cannot

be looked into.

15. Plea as raised by petitioners regarding delay and laches in

making reference is concerned, in absence of any limitation

prescribed as well as the fact that after matter being settled by

Hon'ble Apex Court in 2017 employees which were engaged in

procedure for getting the fruits of award then it was the

recurring cause of action and even no delay and laches appear to

be existing prima facie in the case.

16. The aspect of waiver has been discussed in detail by learned

Court below and while appreciating the evidence found prima

facie that document of consent was prima facie doubtful and it

cannot be construed as consent. It is to be seen in the light of

judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central

Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and Anr. Vs.

Brojo Nath Ganguly and Ors., (1986) 3 SCC 156 and THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

Assistant General Manager and others Vs. Radhey Shyam

Pandey, (2020) 6 SCC 438. In fact Court below referred the

fact regarding one missing page also which could have material

bearing. Beside that, execution proceedings are already going on

in which petitioners are expected to comply the spirit of award.

15. Therefore, confining the discussion to the extent of arriving to a

prima facie conclusion of interim relief, this Court does not find

the case for interim relief. Therefore, I.A.No.13214/2021 stands

rejected. Petitioners shall have to disburse the awarded sum or

alternatively deposit awarded sum before the labour Court in a

Fixed Deposit Receipt of a Nationalized Bank, fetching regular

interest on or before 31st December, 2021.

16. Looking to the nature of controversy, matter deserves to be

heard at an early date. Since respondent caused his appearance,

therefore, no fresh notice is required to be made. Parties are

expected to complete the pleadings, if any, within six weeks.

17. List the matter in first week of February, 2022 for further

orders.

(Anand Pathak) Anil* Judge

ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT

KUMAR OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=8512f40a1a9eaa50b6802d068b51da e27e84c266b09d283f0799e67cdc7df50f,

CHAURASIY pseudonym=F7E569EA2A8955818DF870B0C5 0764B46C526E80, serialNumber=EC534CBB3B245F050119F06F4 A296DD83C765A1E2ACC6EC7D8BD8CBCC9C2

A 446E, cn=ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA Date: 2021.11.21 12:51:07 -08'00'