[Cites 26, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Express Publications (Madurai) ... vs Sundaresan.D on 30 April, 2026
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
W.P.(MD)Nos.15645, 15648, 15652 and 15655 of 2020
and 1937 and 1944 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 28.11.2025
Pronounced on : 30.04.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P.(MD)Nos.15645, 15648, 15652 and 15655 of 2020
and 1937 and 1944 of 2021
and
WMP(MD)Nos.13121, 13122, 13126, 13128, 16017, 16019, 16020
of 2020 and 1663 and 1664 of 2021
W.P.(MD)No.15645 of 2020
Express Publications (Madurai) Private Limited,
(A unit of Express Group of Publications),
Rep. By its General Manager,
No.12/2, 1st Floor, Gokhale Road,
Thallakulam, Madurai – 2. ... Petitioner
Vs
D.Sundaresan ...Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for
the records relating to the impugned order dated 26.02.2020 passed
by the Labour Court, Madurai, in I.A.No.652 of 2019 in I.D.No.7 of
2019 and quash the same as illegal.
1/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.15645, 15648, 15652 and 15655 of 2020
and 1937 and 1944 of 2021
W.P.(MD)No.15648 of 2020
Express Publications (Madurai) Private Limited,
(A unit of Express Group of Publications),
Rep. By its General Manager,
No.12/2, 1st Floor, Gokhale Road,
Thallakulam, Madurai – 2. ... Petitioner
Vs
S.Ganapathy ...Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for
the records relating to the impugned order dated 26.02.2020 passed
by the Labour Court, Madurai, in I.A.No.651 of 2019 in I.D.No.6 of
2019 and quash the same as illegal.
W.P.(MD)No.15652 of 2020
Express Publications (Madurai) Private Limited,
(A unit of Express Group of Publications),
Rep. By its General Manager,
No.12/2, 1st Floor, Gokhale Road,
Thallakulam, Madurai – 2. ... Petitioner
Vs
V.Muthu ...Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
2/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.15645, 15648, 15652 and 15655 of 2020
and 1937 and 1944 of 2021
of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for
the records relating to the impugned order dated 26.02.2020 passed
by the Labour Court, Madurai, in I.A.No.623 of 2019 in I.D.No.42
of 2016 and quash the same as illegal.
W.P.(MD)No.15655 of 2020
Express Publications (Madurai) Private Limited,
(A unit of Express Group of Publications),
Rep. By its General Manager,
No.12/2, 1st Floor, Gokhale Road,
Thallakulam, Madurai – 2. ... Petitioner
Vs
K.Muthukrishnan ...Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for
the records relating to the impugned order dated 26.02.2020 passed
by the Labour Court, Madurai, in I.A.No.566 of 2019 in I.D.No.3 of
2016 and quash the same as illegal.
W.P.(MD)No.1937 of 2021
Express Publications (Madurai) Private Limited,
(A unit of Express Group of Publications),
Rep. By its General Manager,
No.12/2, 1st Floor, Gokhale Road,
3/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.15645, 15648, 15652 and 15655 of 2020
and 1937 and 1944 of 2021
Thallakulam, Madurai – 2. ... Petitioner
Vs
R.Ramadass ...Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for
the records relating to the impugned order dated 26.02.2020 passed
by the Labour Court, Madurai, in I.A.No.654 of 2019 in I.D.No.13
of 2019 and quash the same as illegal.
W.P.(MD)No.1944 of 2021
Express Publications (Madurai) Private Limited,
(A unit of Express Group of Publications),
Rep. By its General Manager,
No.12/2, 1st Floor, Gokhale Road,
Thallakulam, Madurai – 2. ... Petitioner
Vs
A.Ramakrishnan ...Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for
the records relating to the impugned order dated 26.02.2020 passed
by the Labour Court, Madurai, in I.A.No.653 of 2019 in I.D.No.12
4/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.15645, 15648, 15652 and 15655 of 2020
and 1937 and 1944 of 2021
of 2019 and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner
in all W.Ps. : Mr.M.E.Ilango
For Respondent
in all W.Ps. : Mr.T.Sivakumar
COMMON ORDER
The writ petitioners before this court is the Newspaper
Management. The respondents are workers who were employed
under the writ petitioner Management and have retired from service.
2. The respondents/employees have filed applications before
the Labour Court, Madurai, under Section 17(2) of the Working
Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (conditions of service)
and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as
the Act 45 of 1955) that they are entitled for more benefits as per the
recommendations of the Majithia Wage Board and Manisana Wage
Board. The petitioner Management has raised a preliminary issue
before the Labour Court in the applications filed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.15645, 15648, 15652 and 15655 of 2020
and 1937 and 1944 of 2021
respondents/employees that their cadre and category under the Wage
Board and date of promotion are disputed by the petitioner
management and hence,the issue cannot be decided by the Labour
Court while dealing with an application filed under Section 17(2) of
the Act 45 of 1955. Further, the petitioner Management also claims
that the recommendations of the Wage Board is not an award and
therefore, there is no pre-existing right and since the category/ cadre
of the workmen is disputed by the Management, it has to be decided
by raising a separate industrial dispute.
3. The interlocutory applications filed by the Management
raising preliminary objection were rejected by the Labour Court,
Madurai, by the impugned orders dated 26.02.2020 that the Wage
Board's recommendation has been notified by the Government and
the contentions raised by the Management in the interlocutory
applications can also be decided while deciding the applications
filed under Section 17(2) of the Act 45 of 1955. Aggrieved by the
orders of the Labour Court, Madurai, dated 26.02.2020, separate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.15645, 15648, 15652 and 15655 of 2020
and 1937 and 1944 of 2021
writ petitions have been filed by the Management and all these writ
petitions have been tagged together, since the issue involved in all
these writ petitions is common and therefore, these writ petitions are
disposed of by way of this common order.
4. The main contentions of the petitioner Newspaper
Management are summarized as follows:
(i) The claims are being made by the respondents/workmen
from the year 1998 onwards and the respondents/workmen have
already been paid with benefits at the time of their superannuation.
Therefore, the present claims have been made by the
respondents/workmen with delay and such claims cannot be
entertained by the Labour Court.
(ii) The claims made by the workmen that they belong to a
higher cadre/ category cannot be decided under Section 17(2) of the
Act. Section 17(2) of the Act is akin to an execution petition filed
under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The scope of
such an application is limited and the Labour Court cannot decide on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.15645, 15648, 15652 and 15655 of 2020
and 1937 and 1944 of 2021
matters regarding the entitlement or right to a higher grade or post.
In order to establish the same, an industrial dispute ought to be
raised under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Only in such
an industrial dispute, the nature of work performed and higher scale
of pay can be decided.
(iii) The recommendations of the Wage Board constituted
under the Act 45 of 1955 cannot be considered to be an award or a
pre-existing right, as the Wage Board only recommends the grouping
of newspaper employees in a particular grade and the scale of pay
for that grade.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
Management has also relied on the following Judgments in support
of his contention that the scope of execution petitions is limited in
nature:
(i) Keshavlal M Rao vs. State of Gujarat and
others, reported in (1993) 1 GLR 1.
(ii) K.S.Natrajan vs. The Presiding Officer
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.15645, 15648, 15652 and 15655 of 2020
and 1937 and 1944 of 2021
(W.P.No.23929 of 2006 dated 09.02.2010).
(iii) Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu
Electricity and Distribution Corporation Limited,
Tiruvannamalai Electricity Distribution Circle vs.
N.Venkatachalam and another, reported in 2020 III
LLJ 523 (Mad).
6. The contentions of the respondents/employees are
summarized as follows:
(i) Section 12 of the Act 45 of 1955 empowers the Central
Government to make an order in terms of the recommendations of
the Wage Boards constituted under the Act and publish the same in
the Official Gazette.
(ii) In exercise of the powers under the Act, the Central
Government has notified the Majithia Wage Board recommendations
with effect from 11.11.2011 and the respondents/workmen were in
the service of the Newspaper Management during the relevant
period. Therefore, they are entitled to be paid wages at the rate
specified by the notification and have raised claims under Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.15645, 15648, 15652 and 15655 of 2020
and 1937 and 1944 of 2021
17(2) of the Act.
(iii) As per Section 13 read with Section 13D of the Act, the
respondents/workmen are entitled to be paid wages at the rate
specified by the notification and hence, there is no requirement for a
separate adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents/employees, by
relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ABP
Private Limited and another vs. Union of India reported in 2014
(3) SCC 327 and Avishek Raja vs. Sanjay Gupta reported in 2017 8
SCC 435, submits that the Labour Court can decide the issues raised
by the employees in the applications filed under Section 17(2) of the
Act 45 of 1955.
8. This Court considered the rival submissions made and also
perused the materials placed on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.15645, 15648, 15652 and 15655 of 2020
and 1937 and 1944 of 2021
9. Considering the conditions of employment of the working
journalists, the Press Commission has recommended the
Government to bring in a legislation to improve the service
conditions of the journalists and other employees working in the
newspaper establishments. In line with the same, the Central
Government has notified Act 45 of 1955 on 20.12.1955 with the
object of improving the service conditions of the employees of the
Newspaper Establishments. This Act enables the Central
Government to constitute Wage Boards to determine the wages and
other allowances payable to the working journalist and non-
journalist newspaper employees. So far, six Wage Boards have been
constituted under Act 45 of 1955. The claim of the
respondents/employees are based on the recommendations of the
Majithia Wage Board which was constituted under Act 45 of 1955.
10. In all these cases, the respondents/employees served as
non-journalist newspaper employees such as Keyboard Operator and
Senior Pack Man in the petitioner Management and they have retired
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.15645, 15648, 15652 and 15655 of 2020
and 1937 and 1944 of 2021
from service in between 2012 and 2016. They filed applications
before the Labour Court, Madurai, claiming arrears of wages and
benefits as recommended by Majithia Wage Board which was
notified on 11.11.2011. The petitioner management has filed
interlocutory applications raising a preliminary issue in the year
2019, when the Labour Court was about to dispose the applications
filed by the workmen.
11. The main contention of the petitioner Management is that
there is a dispute with regard to the entitlement of the employees
depending on the nature of work, category and cadre of the
employees and therefore, the same has to be decided by raising an
industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act
1947. Only after the same is determined, they are entitled to file
applications under Section 17(2) of the Act 45 of 1955. According to
the learned counsel for the petitioner Management, the provision
under Section 17(2) of the Act 45 of 1955 is akin to an execution
petition filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.15645, 15648, 15652 and 15655 of 2020
and 1937 and 1944 of 2021
the recommendations of the Wage Board notified by the Central
Government is not an award and therefore, there is no pre-existing
right to the employees to maintain the applications under Section
17(2) of the Act 45 of 1955 to execute the award.
12. The Wage Board is constituted by the Central Government
in terms of the statutory powers conferred under Section 9 and 13C
of the Act 45 of 1955. A separate wage board has been constituted
for the working journalists under Section 9 of Act 45 of 1955 and for
the non-journalists newspaper employees under Section 13C of Act
45 of 1955. The wage board is determining the benefits payable by
considering the financial capacity of newspaper establishments, the
prevailing wage structures in comparable industries, the cost of
living, regional disparities, and the need to ensure a fair and
reasonable standard of living for the employees. The Wage Board
consists of three persons representing employers/newspaper
establishments and three persons representing working journalists
and four independent persons, one of whom shall be a Judge of a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.15645, 15648, 15652 and 15655 of 2020
and 1937 and 1944 of 2021
High Court and Supreme Court, who shall be appointed by the
Government as the Chairman of the Committee. The 6th Wage Board
was headed by Justice G.R.Majithia, a retired High Court Judge. The
Wage Board, after elaborate discussions and consultations with
stakeholders made its recommendations to the Government under
Section 10 of the Act and the same was notified by the Government
of India on 11.11.2011. As per the notification, the grouping of
Working Journalists in Newspaper Establishments is provided under
Schedule I-A, the grouping of Non-Journalist Newspaper
Employees- Administrative Staff is provided under Schedule II and
the grouping of Non-Journalist Newspaper Employees- Factory
Staff is provided under Schedule III.
13. The Newspaper Establishments/Managements have
challenged the constitutional validity of the recommendations made
by Majithia Wage Board before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. A three-
Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ABP Private Ltd. and
another vs. Union of India reported in 2014 (3) SCC 327, dismissed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.15645, 15648, 15652 and 15655 of 2020
and 1937 and 1944 of 2021
all the writ petitions filed by the Management, by its judgement
dated 07.02.2014 and has held that the recommendations of the
wage board are valid in law, based on genuine and acceptable
consideration and issued directions for payment of arrears to eligible
persons from 11.11.2011 onwards. The relevant portion of the
judgment is extracted as under:
“73. 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 interference under Article
32 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, all the
writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.
74. In view of the our conclusion and dismissal
of all the writ 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 continue to pay the
revised wages from April 2014 onwards.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.15645, 15648, 15652 and 15655 of 2020
and 1937 and 1944 of 2021
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also clarified the
enforceability of the recommendations of the wage board in Bennett
Coleman & Co. Ltd. vs. State of Bihar reported in (2015) 11 SCC
204 and the relevant portion is extracted as under:
“16.......The recommendations of the Wage
Board are, thus neither an award nor a settlement in
terms of the provisions under the ID Act. It is not
passed by the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal
or the National Industrial Tribunal and it is not an
arbitration award in terms of Section 10-A of the ID
Act. It is not a settlement in terms of Section 2(p) of
the ID Act. It is not an agreement between the parties.
Its enforceability, being a recommendation, depends
on the order passed by the Central Government. The
Central Government has passed that order by issuing
Annexure P-1 notification. If the same is not complied
with, as we have already referred the above, the
remedies lie under Section 17 for recovery or under
Section 18 for penalty and not under the provisions of
the ID Act.
.....
19. A bare reading of the provision would show
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.15645, 15648, 15652 and 15655 of 2020
and 1937 and 1944 of 2021
that the same provides for exercise of the powers of
the Tribunal by the Wage Board in the process of
making its recommendations in regulating its
procedure. The provision does not make Wage Board
a tribunal. The Tribunal under the ID Act does not
make recommendations, it passes award; whereas the
Wage Board under the working Journalists Act is
competent only to make a recommendation in terms of
Section 10 and after the notification of the
recommendations by the Central Government if there
is any dispute regarding any amount due under the
notification, a dispute is raised under Section 17(2) of
the Working Journalists Act and thereafter, an award
is passed by the Labour Court.”
15. Therefore, it is clear that the recommendations of the Wage
Board as notified by the Central Government and as affirmed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court are legally recognised entitlements and the
employees have a right to be paid wages as per these
recommendations.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.15645, 15648, 15652 and 15655 of 2020
and 1937 and 1944 of 2021
16. Even after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
ABP Private Ltd (cited supra), the recommendations of the Wage
Board were not implemented by the Newspaper Establishments and
therefore, one Avishek Raja and others have approached the Hon'ble
Supreme Court by way of a contempt petition in Contempt Petition
(Civil) No.411 of 2014 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by its
interim order dated 28.04.2015 has directed all the States to appoint
Labour Inspectors under Section 17 of the Act so as to determine
whether the dues and entitlements to all categories of newspaper
employees have been implemented and the relevant portion is
extracted as under:
“All the State Governments acting through their
respective Chief Secretaries shall, within four weeks
from today, appoint Inspectors under Section 17(b) of
the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper
Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1955 to determine as to whether the
dues and entitlements of all categories of Newspaper
Employees including Journalists under the Majithia
Wage Board award has been implemented in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.15645, 15648, 15652 and 15655 of 2020
and 1937 and 1944 of 2021
accordance with the terms thereof. The inspectors
appointed by the State Government will naturally
exercise their powers as provided under the Act and
shall submit their report to this Court through the
Labour Commissioners of each State indicating the
precise findings on the issue indicated above. This
will be done within a period of three months from the
date of appointment under Section 17(b) of the Act.”
17. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has finally disposed
of the contempt petition on 19.06.2017 in Avishek Raja vs. Sanjay
Gupta reported in (2017) 8 SCC 435 by directing that all the
complaints with regards to non-implementation of the Wage Board
recommendations should be dealt with as per the mechanism under
Section 17 of the act and the relevant portion is extracted as under:
“29. Having clarified all doubts and
ambiguities in the matter and upon holding that none
of the newspaper establishments should, in the facts of
the cases before us, be held guilty of commission of
contempt, we direct that henceforth all complaints
with regard to non-implementation of the Majithia
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.15645, 15648, 15652 and 15655 of 2020
and 1937 and 1944 of 2021
Wage Board Award or otherwise be dealt with in
terms of the mechanism provided under Section 17 of
the Act. It would be more appropriate to resolve such
complaints and grievances by resort to the
enforcement and remedial machinery provided under
the Act rather than by any future approaches to the
courts in exercise of the contempt jurisdiction of the
Courts or otherwise.”
18. The Act 45 of 1955 was enacted by the Government of
India in order to improve the service conditions of the working
journalists and non-journalist newspaper employees and to regulate
their service conditions along with their benefits, gratuity, provident
fund, minimum hours of work and minimum wages payable to them.
Section 2(eee) of Act 45 of 1955 defines the “wages” as under:
“2(eee)-“wages” means all remuneration
capable of being expressed in terms of money, which
would, if the terms of employment, expressed or
implied, were fulfilled, be payable to a newspaper
employee in respect of his employment or of work
done in such employment, and includes -
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.15645, 15648, 15652 and 15655 of 2020
and 1937 and 1944 of 2021
(i) such allowances (including dearness
allowance) as the newspaper employee is for the time
being entitled to;
(ii) the value of any house accommodation, or of
supply of light, water, medical attendance or other
amenity or of any service or of any concessional
supply of food-grains or other articles;
(iii) any travelling concession,
but does not include-
(a) any bonus;
(b) any contribution paid or payable by the
employer to any pension fund or provident fund or for
the benefit of the newspaper employee under any law
for the time being in force;
(c) any gratuity payable on the termination of
his service.
Explanation. - In this clause, the term “wages”
shall also include new allowances, if any, of any
description fixed from time to time.]”
19. The Wage Board has been constituted as per Sections 9
and 13-C of the Act 45 of 1955, headed by a retired High Judge
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.15645, 15648, 15652 and 15655 of 2020
and 1937 and 1944 of 2021
along with the representatives of the Management. All the issues
raised by the petitioner Management were also considered by the
Wage Board by calling for representations from relevant
stakeholders as required under Section 10 of the Act. The
recommendations of the Wage Board was accepted and notified by
the Central Government on 11.11.2011, however, it was not
implemented by the Newspaper Managements till 2017 by filing
various applications before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled the issue on 07.02.2014 in ABP
Private Ltd.'s case (cited supra), and held that the wages as
revised/determined as per the Wage Board recommendation shall be
payable from 11.11.2011. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by
way of interim orders in Contempt Petition (Civil) No.411 of 2014
and by final order dated 19.06.2017, has directed that the claim with
regard to non-implementation of Wage Board recommendation has
to be dealt with under Section 17(2) of the Act. Therefore, the
respondents/employees have approached the State Government
seeking the benefits to which they are legally entitled as per the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.15645, 15648, 15652 and 15655 of 2020
and 1937 and 1944 of 2021
Wage Board's recommendations and their applications were referred
by the Government of Tamil Nadu under Section 17(2) of Act 45 of
1955 to the Labour Court, Madurai only as per the judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same cannot be found fault with.
20. The Management has also taken a ground that the
respondents/employees retired from service in between 2012 to 2016
and that they have claimed the benefits belatedly and therefore, their
claims should be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. This
ground has also been rejected by the Labour Court that there is no
delay and laches and it is in fact the petitioner Management that has
filed these applications belatedly after three years of the dispute,
particularly, when the main case was about to be disposed and
therefore, the Labour Court has imposed a cost of Rs.2500/- on the
Management while dismissing the interlocutory applications.
21. The learned counsel for the petitioner Management by
referring to some of the Judgments passed by the Madras High Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.15645, 15648, 15652 and 15655 of 2020
and 1937 and 1944 of 2021
and other High Courts has also argued that the provision under
Section 17(2) of the Act is akin to Section 33-C of the Industrial
Disputes Act and is in the nature of an execution proceedings and
therefore, the claim of the employees cannot be decided by the
Labour Court. In view of the said contention, it would be relevant to
extract Section 17(2) of the Act 45 of 1955 and Section 33-C (2) of
the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 for easy reference, as under:
“Section 17 of The Working Journalists and
Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service)
and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955- Recovery of
money due from an employer:
(1) .....
(2) If any question arises as to the amount due
under this Act to a newspaper employee from his
employer, the State Government may, on its own
motion or upon application made to it, refer the
question to any Labour Court constituted by it under
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) or
under any corresponding law relating to investigation
and settlement of industrial disputes in force in the
State and the said Act or law shall have effect in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.15645, 15648, 15652 and 15655 of 2020
and 1937 and 1944 of 2021
relation to the Labour Court as if the question so
referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court
for adjudication under that Act or law.
33-C of Industrial Disputes Act- Recovery of
money due from an employer:
(1) ........
(2) Where any workman is entitled to receive
from the employer any money or any benefit which is
capable of being computed in terms of money and if
any question arises as to the amount of money due or
as to the amount at which such benefit should be
computed, then the question may, subject to any rules
that may be made under this Act, be decided by such
Labour court as may be specified in this behalf by the
appropriate Government[within a period not
exceeding three months:]
[Provided that where the presiding officer of a
Labour Court considers it necessary or expedient so
to do, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing,
extend such period by such further period as he may
think fit.]”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.15645, 15648, 15652 and 15655 of 2020
and 1937 and 1944 of 2021
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in All India Reporter
Karmachari Sangh vs. All India Reporter Ltd., reported in AIR
1988 SC 1325, has held that the Working Journalists and Other
Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act is a beneficial legislation which is enacted for the
purpose of improving the conditions of service of the employees of
the newspaper establishments and hence, even if it is possible to
have two opinions on the construction of the provisions of the act,
the one which advances the object of the Act and is in favour of the
employees for whose benefit the Act is passed, has to be accepted.
Therefore, even assuming for the sake of argument that the
proceedings under Section 17(2) of the Act is akin to execution
proceedings, it would be relevant to refer to the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bank of India Ltd. vs.
P.S.Rajagopalan reported in AIR 1964 SC 743, wherein it was held
that the Labour Court can decide the incidental issues while deciding
an execution application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act. The relevant portion is extracted as under:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.15645, 15648, 15652 and 15655 of 2020
and 1937 and 1944 of 2021
“In our opinion, on a fair and reasonable
construction of sub-section (2) it is clear that if a
workman's right to receive the benefit is disputed, that
may have to be determined by the Labour Court.
Before proceeding to compute the benefit in terms of
money the Labour Court inevitably has to deal with
the question as to whether the workman has a right to
receive that benefit. If the said right is not disputed,
nothing more needs to be done and the Labour Court
can proceed to compute the value of the benefit in
terms of money; but if the said right is disputed, the
Labour Court must deal with that question and decide
whether the workman has the right to receive the
benefit as alleged by him and it is only if the Labour
Court answers this point in favour of the workman
that the next question of making necessary
computation can arise ..........The claim under Section
33C clearly postulates that the determination of the
question about computing the benefit in terms of
money may, in some cases, have to be preceded by an
enquiry into the existence of the right and such an
enquiry must be held to be incidental to the main
determination which has been assigned to the Labour
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.15645, 15648, 15652 and 15655 of 2020
and 1937 and 1944 of 2021
Court by sub-section (2).”
23. Applying the ratio laid down in the above judgment, the
determination of cadre, grade of employees and the nature of work
can also be determined by the Labour Court, while dealing with an
application under Section 17(2) of the Act 45 of 1955. Moreover, it
is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avishek
Raja's case (cited supra) has held in categorical terms that all the
complaints and grievances with regards to the non-implementation
of the Majithia Wage Board Recommendation should be dealt with
in terms of the mechanism provided under Section 17 of the Act and
not otherwise. Therefore, the Labour Court has the jurisdiction to
deal with the claims of the respondents/ employees and the issues
raised by the petitioner management under Section 17(2) of Act 45
of 1955.
24. In light of the above discussion, this court is of the opinion
that there is no infirmity with the impugned orders of the Labour
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.15645, 15648, 15652 and 15655 of 2020
and 1937 and 1944 of 2021
Court, Madurai and all these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
This Court is also of the view that the interlocutory applications
were filed by the petitioner Management at the fag-end of the
proceedings in order to deny the benefits to the
respondents/workmen and to delay the claim process and the
Management has succeeded in delaying the process for the past ten
years. Therefore, this Court, while dismissing the writ petitions, is
inclined to impose a cost of Rs.25,000/- on each writ petition.
25. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed with a
cost of Rs.25,000/- each, payable to the credit of Tamil Nadu Labour
Welfare Fund. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
30.04.2026
ogy
Index : Yes / No.
Internet : Yes / No.
NCC : Yes / No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.15645, 15648, 15652 and 15655 of 2020
and 1937 and 1944 of 2021
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
ogy
Pre-delivery common order in
W.P.(MD)Nos.15645, 15648, 15652 and
15655 of 2020 and 1937 and 1944 of 2021
30.04.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
