FACTS
The case involves multiple writ petitions filed by the management of various newspapers challenging the constitutionality of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955. The Act, initially enacted to regulate the conditions of service for working journalists, was amended in 1974 to include other newspaper employees. The petitioners sought a declaration that the Act violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution. They also requested the quashing of a notification that accepted recommendations from the Justice Majithia Wage Boards for Working Journalists and Non-Journalist Newspaper and News Agency Employees.
ISSUES
Whether the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees Act, 1955 and its amendments violated fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution.
Whether the recommendations of the Justice Majithia Wage Boards for newspaper employees were valid and reasonable.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees Act, 1955, and its amendments, and also confirmed the validity of the recommendations made by the Justice Majithia Wage Boards for newspaper employees. The Act's provisions were deemed justifiable and did not violate the petitioners' fundamental rights.
The Court's jurisdiction to interfere in this matter is limited to examining whether the Wage Board considered the capacity to pay of the news agencies. It cannot question the specialized
board's decision on its merits, as the board was constituted for this purpose.
The petitioners contested the introduction of the concept of 'variable pay' as arbitrary, stating that there was no basis for it. The respondents argued that variable pay had gradations based on establishment size and that it was not a new concept, as it had been used in a predecessor Wage Board.
The court noted that the concept of 'variable pay' was incorporated to ensure equitable treatment for newspaper employees and bring their wages in line with other government sector employees.
The Wage Board recommended a 100% neutralization of dearness allowance, similar to other sectors.
The petitioners claimed that the Wage Boards did not consider regional variations, but the court found that the boards had categorized HRA and Transport Allowance based on regions, taking regional cost differences into account.
The Wage Boards made general suggestions for implementing Wage Awards, but the government didn't accept all of them, especially those beyond the boards' main objective.
Section 12 of the Act gives the Central Government the power to accept or modify the Wage Board's recommendations, and there is no automatic effect on the validity of the entire report if some recommendations are not accepted.
The court held that the Wage Board's recommendations were valid and dismissed the writ petitions.
The revised wages were to be payable from November 11, 2011, and arrears up to March 2014 would be paid in four equal installments within one year. The revised wages would continue from April 2014 onwards.
Comments