- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16438 WP No. 54509 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 54509 OF 2017 (L-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. N. VISHNU BHAT S/O SRI. N. NARAYAN BHAT, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT "SHREE DURGA", 4TH CROSS, ESHWARNAGARNATH, MANIPAL - 576 104. 2. SRI. A. RAJEEVA POOJARI S/O SRI. CHANDU POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT "GANESH KRIPA", HALEKODI, KACHUR VILLAGE, BARKUR - 576 201, UDUPI DISTRICT. 3. SRI. RAMNATH SHANBAGH S/O SRI. SHAMRAO V. SHANBAGH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 8-76, D2D, SHAM RAO SADAN, ISHWARNAGAR NORT, MANIPAL - 576 104, UDUPI DISTRICT. 4. SRI. GANAPATHI POOJARI S/O SRI. JABBA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT "VANDANA", PO PERAMPALLI, KUNJIBETTU-576 102, UDUPI DISTRICT. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16438 WP No. 54509 of 2017 5. SRI. K. CHANDRASHEKAR RAO S/O SRI. VASUDEV RAO, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1175/A, 2ND CROSS, K. N. EXTENSION, TRIVENI ROAD, YESWANTHPUR, BENGALURU - 560 022. 6. SRI. RAJENDRA BEKAL S/O SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA.B, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2/1, RAJESH NILAYA, I FLOOR, NANDANAVANAM, B-STREET, JOGUPALYA, ULSOOR, BENGALURU - 560 018. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. R. KIRAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER HASSAN REGION, HARALLIKATTE ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201. 2. MANIPAL MEDIA NETWORK LIMITED UDAYAVANI BUILDING, MANIPAL - 576 104, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENTS (BY MS. RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R1; V/O DATED 26.04.2018 NOTICE TO R2 HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2017 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 PER ANNEXURE -F; DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.1 TO TAKE ACTION IN - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16438 WP No. 54509 of 2017 ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AS STATED IN ITS SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 24.03.2017 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 PER ANNEXURE-E; DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.2 TO PAY THE ARREARS OF WAGES AS PER THE CLAIM PER ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioners are Working Journalists as contemplated under the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees [Condition of Service] and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1995 [for short, 'the Working Journalists Act'], and they are working with the second respondent. The petitioners are aggrieved by the first respondent's order dated 22.04.2017 [Annexure-F] referring the petitioners' claim to recover wages from the second respondent [the Reference]. 2. The petitioners' grievance with the second respondent's Communication dated 22.04.2017 resulting in the reference to the concerned Labour - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16438 WP No. 54509 of 2017 Court must be examined in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances and the provisions of the Working Journalists Act as also the fact that though this Court on 22.01.2018 has stayed the Reference, the proceedings in the Reference have continued with it now being listed for arguments because this interim order is not continued thereafter by a reasoned order. 3. The Wage Board, which is constituted under the Working Journalists Act, has framed Regulations notifying wages that must be paid by different categories of Publishing Houses. The Central Government has accepted these Regulations. The petitioners contend that the second respondent will be a Category-4 Publishing House, and it will therefore have to pay wages as is recommended and approved by the Central Government for this category with the second respondent asserting that it is a Category-6 Publishing House and it has paid wages accordingly. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16438 WP No. 54509 of 2017 4. It emerges from the Show Cause Notice dated 24.03.2017 that the first respondent has taken a tentative view that the second respondent will be Category -4 Publishing House because its turnover for three relevant years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009- 10 is over Rs.50 crores. It is after this Show Cause Notice and the Response filed thereto, the first respondent has referred the dispute that emanates from the rival assertions as stated for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists Act. 5. Mr. R. Kiran, the learned counsel for the petitioners, relying upon Section 17 of the Working Journalists Act, submits that the first respondent could have made a Reference to the concerned Labour Court as contemplated under Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists Act only if there was a dispute, but if the first respondent was satisfied that the second respondent is due, as opined in the Show Cause Notice dated 24.03.2017, it must recover the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16438 WP No. 54509 of 2017 amount due as arrears of land revenue. Ms. Rashmi Rao, the learned High Court Government Pleader, is heard in the light of this canvass, and none appears for the second respondent, which is duly served. 6. The Section 17 of the Working Journalists Act reads as under: 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 the 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 application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16438 WP No. 54509 of 2017 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 the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for 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). 7. There is no quarrel with the proposition that if there is a dispute in the sense that if a question arise as to the amount due under the Working Journalists Act, the State Government must, on its own notion or on an application, refer such a question to the Labour Court constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, the question in the present case is, whether the first respondent is justified in invoking Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists Act to refer the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16438 WP No. 54509 of 2017 8. This Court must record that the dispute viz., the question as to the amount payable under the Working Journalists Act to the petitioners, with the petitioners asserting that the second respondent is Category-4 Publishing House, must be resolved on a proper reading of the Annual Returns and relevance thereof given the recommendations and the Central Government's order under Section 12 of the Working Journalists Act. If the first respondent has not returned a definite conclusion because of the contra positions by the petitioner and the second respondent would mean a dispute that will have to be resolved on a Reference under Section 17[2] of the Working Journalists Act. Hence, no exception could be taken with the first respondent's order dated 22.04.2017. 9. At this stage, Mr. R. Kiran submits that this Court must consider directing the Labour Court to dispose of the pending Reference expeditiously because most of the petitioners are aged and the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16438 WP No. 54509 of 2017 proceedings in the Reference are at the final stages. These submissions are also considered. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER The petition stands disposed of directing the concerned Labour Court to dispose of the pending Reference expeditiously while calling upon both the petitioners and the second respondent to cooperate with the Labour Court. In this context it is observed that the Labour Court shall endeavour to close the proceedings by 30.12.2025. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA,NV ct:sr