2025:JHHC:38746 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (L) No.2970 of 2020 Hindustan Media Ventures Limited through its Authorized Representative Sanjeet Kumar Singh, Aged about 45 Yrs, S/o Late P N Singh, Office situated at Industrial area, Kokar, PO- Kokar, PS-Sadar, District-Ranchi ..…… Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Secretary, Labour, Employment & Training Department, Room No.007/1, Ground Floor, Nepal House, Doranda, PO & PS-Doranda, Dist-Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) 3.Shri Anil Kumar, Son of Shri Raj Nandan Sah, Resident of HB-59, Adarsh Nagar, PO & PS-Dhurva, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) ……. Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : A.C to A.G. For the Resp. No.3 : Mr. Rishikesh Giri, Advocate ----------- CAV Judgment Delivered on 10/11/2025 This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for the following reliefs:- “A. For setting aside the Award dated 28.08.2019 pronounced in open Court on 20.11.2019 in Reference Case No. 23 of 2017 by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi, (Annexure-4), whereby and whereunder the learned Labour Court purportedly exercising power under Section 17 (2) of The Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (condition of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter for brevity called as 'the WJ Act') and the Provision under Sub Sec (2A) of Sec 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'the ID Act') without following the Provisions of WJ Act, Majithia Wage Board Recommendation (hereinafter for brevity referred as MWB) as well as settled principle of industrial adjudication has passed award in favour of the Workman, Whereby and Where under the 2025:JHHC:38746 2 learned Labour Court, Ranchi has affirmed the self claimed amount of Respondent No. 3 against the Petitioner to the tune of Rs.16,15,176/-; B. For staying the operation of Award dated 28.08.2019 passed in Reference Case No. 23 of 2017 by the learned Presiding officer, labour Court, Ranchi and also for staying any further proceeding emanating from or related with the Ref. Case No. 23/2017 during pendency of the present case; And for other ancillary reliefs.” 2. The term of referene for adjudication before the Labour Court, Ranchi was made by the State of Jharkhand in exercise of powers conferred under Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, which reads as follows:- “Whether due amount of Rs.16,15,176/- (Sixteen Lakhs Fifteen Thousand One Hundred Seventy Six only) claimed by Sri Anil Kumar, Assistant Manager, IT, Employee Code-10146, Ranchi from his Management M/s Hindustan Media Ventures, Ltd., Ranchi Unit is Justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to?” 3. Heard Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sinha, A.C to A.G for the State and Mr. Rishikesh Giri, learned counsel for the Respondent No.3. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned Award dated 28.09.2019 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi in Ref. Case No.23 of 2017 is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that though Majithia Wage Board (in short to be referred as “MWB‟) recommendation was notified on 11.11.2011 and the same is for the benefit of Working Journalist and Non Journalist employee in Newspaper Establishment but there are exception as well, in terms of Section 2 (dd) of the Working Journalist Act, 1955. 2025:JHHC:38746 3 5. It is submitted that Respondent No. 3, Assistant Manager IT Department made claim to the tune of Rs.16,15,176/- to the management M/s Hindustan Media Venture Ltd. purportedly on the basis of the Majithia Wage Board Recommendations. Since Management disputed the above amount and submitted that he is not entitled to receive any benefits under the Wage Board Recommendations, the State Government in view of provision under section 17 (2) of the WJ Act referred the matter for its adjudication before the learned Labour Court, Ranchi vide Ref Case no. 23/2017. 6. It is submitted that the false claim raised by the Claimant- Respondent No.3 against the Petitioner is devoid of merits and is based on a concocted story put forward by the Claimant- Respondent No.3 in pursuance of his personal vendetta against the company with the purpose to extract illegal money under the garb of the Majithia Wage Board recommendations. It is submitted that the Claimant-Respondent No.3 also failed to bring out any dispute capable of being adjudicated under Section 17 of the WJ Act. Hence, the proceedings before the Labour Court was without jurisdiction. 7. It is submitted that the claim is barred by estoppel, waiver and acquiescence since it has been shown that the Claimant never raised any claim during the tenure of his service and has raised the same on 23.02.2017 which is mentioned in Para 12 of his evidence, only after separation from the services of the company dated 27.01.2017. It is submitted that the Claimant-Respondent No.3 was all along aware that he is not eligible to receive the benefits of the Majithia Wage Board recommendations and therefore, the claimant never raised any claim during the tenure of his service. 2025:JHHC:38746 4 It is further submitted that the Claimant-Respondent No.3 was appointed as Senior Executive IT department and further promoted to the post of Assistant Manager IT vide letter dated 17.05.2010 and as such he is fully aware that he is not eligible for wages accordance with Majithia Wage Board recommendation. 8. It is submitted that the claimant had joined as Senior Executive System with effect from January 15, 2003 on monthly consolidated stipend and probation for a period of Six months and which was extended further in the year 2004 & 2005 which was further appraised for the Period of 2007-08 and 2008-09 on the said post. On the basis of performance, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Manager vide order dated 17.05.2010 and he availed the salary and perks for the Managerial Post. It is further submitted that his salary was also revised time to time on the basis of appraisal in the financial year and the Claimant- Respondent No.3 willingly accepted the Role sheet mentioned above. He had put the signature over every Service Contract and Role Sheet where nature of work is specifically mentioned. Thus, the Claimant-Respondent No.3 was given promotion several times before recommendation of Majithia wage Board recommendation as well but he never raised any objection with regard to his salary and benefits. It is submitted that the Claimant duly agreed to the renewal of the arrangement in 2013, i.e. after the recommendations of Majithia Wage Board were notified in 2011. It is submitted that petitioner Management substantiated in its evidence through documents like P/L statement duly certified by Chartered Accountant for the relevant years that the Ranchi 2025:JHHC:38746 5 Newspaper Establishment is placed in Class VI and not in Class I. It is submitted that the Claimant-Respondent No.3 agreed with the salary and even his salary was increased by three folds since June 2005 to May 2015 and the Claimant agreed not to be governed by any wage Fixation machinery, including the salary. Thus exercising his discretion u/s 16 (2) of WJ Act for a period of 14 years, he is precluded from raising any claim. 9. It is submitted that the claimant is not covered u/s 2(dd) of the WJ Act, the Claimant last worked on the designation of Assistant Manager, IT Department discharging Managerial/ Administrative/Supervisory duties thereby falling under the exceptions provided u/s 2(dd) of the WJ Act. It is submitted that the Management proved in its evidence that the nature of work performed by the Claimant is supervisory in nature and therefore exclusion clause of Section 2 (dd) of the W.J. Act shall be applicable and thus the Opposite Party No. 3 is ousted from the ambit of Section 2 (dd) of the W.J. Act. It is submitted that the Management has also proved successfully in its evidence that role sheets of the Claimant, duly signed by him, the Managerial/Administrative role of the Claimant. The Claimant-Respondent No.3 was also given decision making powers which are only afforded to Managerial Cadre employees and accordingly the Claimant is covered within the exceptions to Section 2 (dd) and therefore, he cannot seek the remedy under the WJ Act. It is submitted that the calculation filed by the claimant- Respondent No.3 before the learned labour Court is based on imaginary figures as it would be evident that the claim amount to 2025:JHHC:38746 6 the tune of Rs. 16,15,176/- is based as Respondent No. 3 keeping Ranchi Unit as Class -I Establishment. It has been submitted that Management in its evidence has proved that through the profit and loss statement of the relevant financial years, duly certified by a Chartered Accountant that as per the average annual revenue of the Ranchi Newspaper Establishment, the same falls under Class VI in terms of the Majithia Wage Board recommendations. 10. It is submitted that the claim of the Respondent No.3 stands on fallacious classification of Ranchi Newspaper. The Claimant- Respondent No.3 has misunderstood the recommendations of the Majithia Wage Board and has proceeded to place the Ranchi „Newspaper Establishment‟ of Hindustan Media Ventures Limited in Class I, when in fact, the said 'newspaper establishment' falls under Class-VI. Since the claimant was employed at the Ranchi newspaper establishment of Hindustan Media Ventures Limited, for the purpose of fixation of Wages under the Majithia Wage Board recommendations, the average annual revenue of Ranchi newspaper establishment has to be considered. Even Annexure “A” of reference letter is also in connection with Ranchi Unit. It is submitted that on bare perusal of Para 3(a) (i) of Section 2 of Chapter XIX of the Majithia Wage Board recommendations, it can be noticed that while classifying newspaper establishments, the Wage Board has taken into consideration the definition of newspaper establishment as provided u/s 2(d) of the WJ Act. In the subsequent clause, the Majithia Wage Board has provided that on clubbing the different department, branches and centers of newspaper establishments on the basis of their gross revenue, they shall not be stepped up 2025:JHHC:38746 7 by more than two classes above the class to which they belong according to their gross revenue. It is submitted that on conjoint reading of definition u/s 2(d) of the WJ Act, Para 3(a) (i) and 3(a) (ii) of Section II of Chapter XIX of the Majithia Wage Board recommendations along with Para 6 of the said chapter, it is apparent that the Majithia Wage Board while making provision for classification of newspaper establishment, has treated the different centre's of newspaper establishments as an independent unit. The Majithia Wage Board recommendations further classified various cities into separate and distinct classes as mentioned in Table V at Page 39 of the Majithia Wage Board Recommendations. It is submitted that while making recommendations, the Majithia Wage Board has considered the express provisions u/s 10 (4) of the W.J. Act, whereby it has considered the cost of living, prevalent rates of wages and the circumstances relating to the newspaper industry in different regions of the country and has therefore treated units/centres of newspaper establishments independent units and classified them on the basis of their own income for the purpose of fixation of wages. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention, has relied upon the following judgments:- (i) AIR 1958 (SC) 578 (Para 243, 244 and 253) (ii) AIR 1995 (SC) 965 (Para 6 and 10) (iii) AIR 2014 (SC) 1228 (Para-56, 66, 67 and 70 to 73) (iv) AIR 2017 (SC) 2955 (Para 27) (v) (2015) 4 SCC 71 (Para 19, 21 and 22) (vi) (2014) 1 SCC 536 (Para-16) (vii) (2004) 10 SCC 460 (Para 23 and 51) (viii) 2010 (2) MhLJ 22 (Para 12 to 19) (ix) (2005) 3 SCC 232 (Para 16 and 17) 2025:JHHC:38746 8 It is submitted that in view of the above, the Respondent No. 3 is not entitled to any claim and accordingly, impugned Award dated 28.08.2019 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi may be set aside and this writ petition may be allowed. 12. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State- Respondent No.2- submitted that the impugned Award passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required. It is submitted that the learned Labour Court has properly scrutinized the case of both the sides properly and has rightly passed the Award in the light of report of Majethia Wage Board. It is submitted that the instant writ petition is not maintainable in the eye of law or in fact as the alleged question of law as well as fact in the writ petition is baseless, misconceived and does not arise for consideration by this Court, hence the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. It is submitted that the present Reference Case was referred by the Government of Jharkhand under the provision of Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide Memo No- 2/Shrma.Ka/ (WJ. Ref-13/2017 L & E No.2638 dated- 07/12/2017 read with Section 17 (2) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Condition of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, hence the reference made by the Government of Jharkhand is maintainable. 13. It is submitted that the Respondent No-3 namely Anil Kumar was admittedly terminated from his services of the workmen vide Letter dated 27.01.2017 in utter violation of Section 16 A of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Condition of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions 2025:JHHC:38746 9 Act, 1955, without granting any benefits of Majithia Wage Board Recommendation. It is submitted that the petitioner establishment namely M/s Hindustan Media ventures Ltd. Ranchi is an „Industry‟ within the meaning of Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and is also a “Newspaper Establishment” within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Condition of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955. It is further submitted that the present Management establishment would also fall under the purview of Section 2 (m) of the Factories Act, 1948 as a “Factory.” It is submitted that the learned Labour Court has rightly decided that as per Section 3 of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Condition of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 shall apply to the working journalist or non- journalist as they apply to the workmen within the meaning of the Act. Therefore any newspaper establishment employee would be treated as „Workmen.‟ As per Section 2 (c ) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Condition of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, the private Respondent No-3 is an employee since he was performing work under the newspaper establishment and the Respondent No.3 had not performed any Managerial work. It is submitted that learned Labour Court, Ranchi has rightly awarded Rs-16,15,176/- to the Respondent No-3, as he being the workman had never performed any Managerial duties rather he was performing technical duties of repairing and maintenance of computers and laptops of the petitioner‟s establishment at Ranchi. 2025:JHHC:38746 10 It is submitted that private Respondent No-3 namely Anil Kumar who is a workman under Section 2 (dd) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Condition of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 and he is also entitled for the claim and benefits of Majithia Wage Board Recommendation since he is non- journalist as per the provision of Section 2 (dd) of Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (condition of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955. Hence this writ petition may be dismissed. Hence this writ petition may be dismissed. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No.3, after adopting the argument of the learned counsel for the State-Respondent No.2, has further submitted that the impugned Award passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and as such no interference is required. It is submitted that the petitioner-company has exploited the Respondent No.3 like anything. It is submitted that the learned Labour Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between the Respondent No.3 and the petitioner-company under Section 17 (2) of Working Journalist Act, 1955. It is submitted that as per recommendation of Majethia Wage Board, the Workman- Respondent No.3 is entitled to the dues in the light of reference made by the Government of Jharkhand. It is submitted that the Respondent No.3 is also a Workman within the meaning of Section 2(c) of W.J. Act, 1955 which clearly stipulates that a newspaper employee includes any person/employee to do any work or in relation to any establishment. It is submitted that the Workman was doing technical job and as such he was under the category of newspaper employee within the definition of „Workman‟. It is submitted that the Respondent No.3-Anil 2025:JHHC:38746 11 Kumar was examined as A.W-1 before the learned Labour Court and he clearly stated that he was appointed as a Senior Executive System in the IT Department by letter dated 15.01.2003 issued by the office of the petitioner-company. It is submitted that the Respondent No.3 used to repair and maintain computer system installed in the office of the Management-Petitioner and Laptops issued by the officer of the petitioner-company and he was also looking after networking of the installed computer system. It is submitted that although the Respondent No.3 was promoted as an Assistant Manager but he was made in-charge of the computer system of the petitioner-company. 15. It is submitted that the evidence of M.W-1- Syed Ali Hashir Zaidi is not reliable as he is an interested witness. However, said M.W-1- Syed Ali Hashir Zaidi has also admitted that Respondent No.3-Anil Kumar was initially appointed as a Senior Assistant Engineer in the petitioner-company. It is submitted that the Respondent No.3 had followed the due procedure established by law and has put forth his claim as a workman before the Deputy Commissioner in consonance with Majithia Wage Board Recommendations, after filing the C-form and thereby made a demand to the tune of Rs-16,15,176/- as dues. Further the Deputy Labour Commissioner in terms of Section 17 of Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Condition of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 had issued notice to the petitioner establishment as well as Respondent No-3 and since the settlement could not be arrived, the conciliation Officer submitted its Failure report under Section 12 (4) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Condition of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955. 2025:JHHC:38746 12 It is submitted that dispute finally culminated into Industrial Dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Government referred the same for adjudication before the learned Labour Court, Ranchi. 16. It is further submitted that the petitioner-company Hindustan Media Ventures Limited has got Pan India existence and there are many Local Editions and Local Newspaper Publication or Publication Unit and Ranchi unit of petitioner- company has no independent existence rather entire financial transaction takes place in the light of direction issued by the daily office of the petitioner company. There is also provision of transfer of newspaper employee from one unit to another unit in the entire country. It is submitted that annual turnover of the petitioner company is above Rs.One Thousand Crore. It is submitted that the learned Labour Court, Ranchi has rightly held that the gross revenue and the entire claim has to be seen in light of the existing main Head Office Gross Revenue of the company and not that of the "Ranchi Unit" and since Ranchi Unit has no independent existence and the entire financial transaction is being made from the Head Office located at New Delhi. It is further submitted that the Petitioner company falls under the meaning of Section 2 (d) of Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Condition of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1955, which defines Newspaper establishment, so Newspaper Establishment would mean Pan India. 17. It is submitted that there was no adverse report against the Respondent No.3 before his removal by the petitioner company. It is submitted that no document of promotion was issued to the Respondent No.3 rather the Respondent No.3 continued to work 2025:JHHC:38746 13 as the Senior Executive only and no document was produced by the petitioner company before the Labour Court below to substantiate its claim that the petitioner was posted as an Assistant Manager after promotion. It is submitted that as per Chapter-XX, Appendix-1(b) and Clause-VII, the Respondent No.3 is deemed to be a newspaper employee. It is submitted that from perusal of page-114 and 115 of LCR, it is clear that the promotion letter was issued to the Respondent No.3 but no actual enhancement in pay was made by the petitioner company and no actual promotion was given to the Respondent No.3 by the petitioner. It is submitted that the Workman has fully supported his case during his evidence while examined as A.W-1. It is further submitted that the exhibits submitted by the Respondent No.3 has fully supported his case and thus, this writ petition is devoid of merit and no interference is required from this Court. It is submitted that the Respondent No.3 is entitled to due amount of Rs.16,15,176/- from the petitioner company. Hence, this writ petition may be dismissed 18. Perused the records of this case and considered the submission of both the sides. 19. It transpires that the learned Labour Court, Ranchi has framed the following issues, which are as follows:- “(i) Whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain reference or not? (ii) Whether applicant falls within the definition of workman? (iii) Whether it is necessary for claiming a relief under Section 17(2) of the Workman Journalist Act, one should be newspaper employee as well as workman? (iv) Whether newspaper establishment means newspaper establishment of Ranchi Unit or Pan India Establishment of Hindustan Media Venture? (v) Whether applicant is entitled for claim of Rs. 16,15,176/ or not? 2025:JHHC:38746 14 (vi) If applicant is entitled for claim of Rs. 16,15,176/ whether arrears should be calculated on the basis of Pan India Revenue or Ranchi Unit revenue?” 20. The Workman-Respondent No.3 in support of his case, has examined himself as A.W-1 namely Anil Kumar. 21. The Respondent No.3-Workman in support of his case has got proved the following documents as exhibits which are as follows:- (i) Exhibit-1-Photocopy of the appointment letter dated15.01.2003, (ii) Exhibit-2- Photocopy of the revision letter dated 21.06.2004, (iii) Exhibit-3-Salary Certificate 2006-2007, (iv) Exhibit-4-Pay revision letter dated 18.06.2007, (v) Exhibit-5- Pay revision letter dated 06.06.2008, (vi) Exhibit-6-Bonus payment order, (vii) Exhibit-7-Guide to understanding salary component 2008-2009, (viii) Exhibit-8- Pay revision letter dated 17.05.2010, (ix) Exhibit-9-Appreciation Bonus Award dated 17.05.2010, (x) Exhibit-10-Pay revision letter dated 19.05.2011, (xi) Exhibit-11-Pay revision letter dated 16.05.2012, (xii) Exhibit-12-Pay revision letter dated 18.05.2013, (xiii) Exhibit-13- Pay revision letter dated 18.05.2014, (xiv) Exhibit-14-Pay revision letter dated 11.05.2015, (xv) Exhibit-15- Pay revision letter dated 23.05.2016, (xvi) Exhibit-16-Termination letter dated 27.01.2017, (xvii) Exhibit-17-Demand of Majithia Wage Recommendation dated 23.02.2017, (xviii) Exhibit-18- Demand letter dated 24.03.2017, Form-C and Statement of Claim, (xix) Exhibit-19-Notice no. 643 dated 27.03.2017 sent by Labour Superintendent, (xx) Exhibit-20 Reply of the management. (xxi) Exhibit-21 Demand of workman before DLC dated 19.04.2017, (xxii) Exhibit-22 Demand of the workman before management dated 29.04.2017, (xxiii) Exhibit-23 Notice no. 844 dated 03.05.2017 sent by Labour Superintendent, (xxiv) Exhibit-24-Notice No. 1142 dated 02.06.2017 sent by Labour Superintendent, 2025:JHHC:38746 15 (xxv) Exhibit-25-Reply of Management dated 15.06.2017, (xxvi) Exhibit-26- Representation dated 16.05.2017, (xxvii) Exhibit-27- Representation dated 06.07.2017, (xxviii) Exhibit-28-Representation dated 20.06.2017, (xxix) Exhibit-29- Pay slip from January, 2010 to December, 2010, (xxx) Exhibit-30- Pay slip from January, 2011 to December, 2011, (xxxi) Exhibit-31 - Pay slip from January, 2012 to December, 2012, (xxxii) Exhibit-32- Pay slip from January, 2013 to December, 2013, (xxxiii) Exhibit-33- Pay slip from January, 2014 to December, 2014, (xxxiv) Exhibit-34- Pay slip from January, 2015 to December, 2015 and (xxxv) Exhibit-35- Pay slip from January, 2016 to December, 2016. 22. The Management-petitioner in support of its case has got examined two witnesses, who are as follows:- (i) M.W- 1 is Syed Ali Hashir Zaidi and (ii) M.W-2 is Sanjeet Kumar Singh. 23. The Management in support of its case, got proved the following documents as exhibits, which are as follows:- (i) Exhibit-A Turnover of the Ranchi Establishment for three consecutive years i.e. 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10, (ii) Exhibit-B- Biodata of the workman before the management, (iii) Exhibit-C Letter dated 29.05.2015 to the workman and received by him on 18.08.2015 and (iv) Exhibit-D-Role Sheet of the workman dated 02.06.2014 and 29.05.2015. 24. Before entering into the merit of the case, it would be relevant to refer certain Sections and Rules of Working Journalists Act, 1955, which read as follows:- “Section-2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- [(a) “Board” means- (i) in relation to working journalists, the Wage Board constituted under section 9; and 2025:JHHC:38746 16 (ii) in relation to non-journalist newspaper employees, the Wage Board constituted under section 13-C;] 2(c) “newspaper employee” means any working journalist, and includes any other person employed to do any work in, or in relation to, any newspaper establishment; 2(d) “newspaper establishment” means an establishment under the control of any person or body of persons, whether incorporated or not, for the production or publication of one or more newspapers or for conducting any news agency or syndicate [and includes newspaper establishments specified as one establishment under the Schedule. “2(dd) Non-Journalist Newspaper employee” means a person employed to do any work in, or in relation to, any Newspaper Establishment, but does not include any such person who- (i) is a working journalist, or (ii) is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or (iii) being employed in a supervisory capacity, performs, either by the nature of the duties attached to his office or by reason of the powers vested in him, function mainly of a managerial nature; 2[(ee) “Tribunal” means- (i) in relation to working journalists, the Tribunal constituted under section 13-AA; and (ii) in relation to non-journalist newspaper employees, the Tribunal constituted under section 13-DD;] 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- (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; 2025:JHHC:38746 17 (c) any gratuity payable on the termination of his service. 2(f) “working journalist” means a person whose principal avocation is that of a journalist and [who is employed as such, either whole-time or part-time, in, or in relation to, one or more newspaper establishments], and includes an editor, a leader- writer, news-editor, sub-editor, feature-writer, copy-tester, reporter, correspondent, cartoonist, news-photographer and proof-reader, but does not include any such person who- (i) is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity or (ii) being employed in a supervisory capacity, performs, either by the nature of the duties attached to his office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature; Issue Nos.I, II and III:- 25. All these issues are interlinked with each other and as such the same are being decided simultaneously. It transpires that the while the Respondent No.3 was serving in the company of the petitioner then he was terminated on 27.01.2017 from the service by the petitioner company. Thereafter the Respondent No.3 has raised industrial dispute after failure of conciliation proceeding before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Ranchi. 26. So far as oral evidence is concerned, A.W-1 is Anil Kumar-Workman who has filed his evidence on affidavit, stating therein that the Annual Turnover of the Management is more than Rs.1000 Crores (Rs.One Thousand Crores) and the unit of the Management falls under Class-I category in terms of Majithia Wage Board Recommendation. He also stated that he was appointed as “Senior Executive-System” in the Information Technology Department in the Management-petitioner by virtue of appointment letter dated 15.01.2003. He used to repair and maintain the computer systems installed in the office of the Management, laptops issued to the officers and networking of 2025:JHHC:38746 18 entire computer systems so installed. In addition to the above, he also used to install software and maintain the applications installed in the computer system and he used to check each and every computer installed in all the departments viz. production, store, Media Marketing, sales English, Hindi Newspapers, Advertisement Account, HR and Accounts Department etc. Hence the nature of work that he was performing since beginning till the date of his wrongful termination was purely of technical in nature. He stated that he had no power to grant leave to any employee, to take action against any employee. He had also not ever worked in the supervisory capacity. He used to perform his job by himself by repairing or maintaining the computer/networking system as there was no helper or assistant appointed under him. Later on the Management revised his salary with effect from 01.04.2004 vide letter dated 21.06.2004 which was done on the basis of his performance. He also admitted to have been promoted on the post of Assistant Manager by virtue of letter dated 17.05.2010 but the nature of work was remained unchanged. He performed his job honestly and efficiently to the best satisfaction of his superior. He further stated that he had been demanding the benefits of wage recommendation but the Management neither calculated the arrears of dues nor paid any lump sum amount and instead of granting any benefit of Majithia Award the Management terminated his service vide letter dated 27.01.2017 in utter violation of the provision as contained under section 16A of the W.J. Act. Thereafter he had raised an industrial dispute, which has also been referred by the Government and registered before the Labour Court as Ref. No.22 of 2017. 2025:JHHC:38746 19 27. During cross-examination, he stated that he passed MBA/IT and he was appointed on the post of “Senior Executive- System”. Later on he was promoted on 17.05.2010 as the Assistant Manager and was getting salary of Rs.16,500/-. He has claimed Rs.16,15,176/- on the basis of Majethia Board Recommendation. He claimed that he had been removed from the services and he had not left the job. He denied to have remained absent unauthorizedly. He also denied to be working on Managerial post. 28. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of A.W-1 i.e. Workman-Respondent No.3-Anil Kumar, it is evident that he was working on the post of Assistant Manager from 17.05.2010. Even, from the evidence of A.W-1, it is evident that A.W-1-Anil Kumar was not holding the post of Senior Executive rather he was holding the post of Assistant Manager which is a Managerial post. 29. So far as evidence of Management is concerned, M.W-1 is Mr. Hashir Zaidi who has also filed his evidence on affidavit stating therein that he is the authorized representative of the Management-petitioner. He stated that the claimant-workman joined as Senior Executive-System from 15.01.2003 on monthly consolidated stipend on probation for a period of six months which was extended further in the year 2004 and 2005 and the Claimant- Respondent No.3 was further appraised for the period of 2007-08 and 2008-09 on the said post. He has further stated that the claimant was lastly working as Assistant Manager and employed in the Managerial/Officer Cadre and performing duties in the Managerial/Supervisory/Administrative capacity. The Workman is neither covered under Working Journalist Act nor under 2025:JHHC:38746 20 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There is no cause of action in the present reference with regard to the claim of Majithia Wage Board Recommendation and the Respondent No.3 is out of purview of the definition of Workman as provided under section 2(s) of the I.D. Act and/or also „non-journalist newspaper employee‟ as defined under section 2(dd) of the Working Journalist and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955. The Claimant has concealed the real fact that he was performing Managerial/Administrative/Supervisory activities with the Management/Company. He further stated that though the claimant was promoted to the aforesaid post and enjoying all facilities for the above post, finally he was separated from services on 27.01.2017 and claiming for the alleged amount due accordance with Majithia Wage Board recommendation before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Ranchi although he was performing Managerial/Administrative nature of work and he discontinued his service since 27.01.2017. Even his letter of first appointment dated 15.01.2003 is also relates as Senior Executive as Officer‟s cadre and as per provisions of Industrial Disputes Act Managerial/Administrative nature of job is not a “Workman”. 30. During cross-examination, he stated that the Workman- Respondent No.3 was working in IT Department and he was associated with LAN. 31. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of M.W-1, it is evident that the workman was working on the Managerial post and not on Non- Journalist Newspaper employee post in the capacity of Working Journalist. 2025:JHHC:38746 21 32. It has been held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Oshiar Prasad and Ors. vs. Employers in relation to Management of Sudamdih Coal Washery of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad, Jharkhand reported in (2015) 4 SCC 71 at para-19, 21 and 22 as follows:- “Para-19:- Mitter, J., speaking for the Bench, held as under : (Delhi Cloth and General Mills case [AIR 1967 SC 469] , AIR p. 472, paras 8-9) “8. … Under Section 10(1)(d) of the Act, it is open to the appropriate Government when it is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists to make an order in writing referring „the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to the dispute … to a Tribunal for adjudication‟. Under Section 10(4): „10. (4) Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal under this section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate Government has specified the points of dispute for adjudication, the Labour Court or the Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall confine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto.‟ 9. From the above it therefore appears that while it is open to the appropriate Government to refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected therewith for adjudication, the Tribunal must confine its adjudication to those points of dispute referred and matters incidental thereto. In other words, the Tribunal is not free to enlarge the scope of the dispute referred to it but must confine its attention to the points specifically mentioned and anything which is incidental thereto. The word „incidental‟ means according to Webster's New World Dictionary: „happening or likely to happen as a result of or in connection with something more important; being an incident; casual; hence, secondary or minor, but usually associated:‟ „Something incidental to a dispute‟ must therefore mean something happening as a result of or in connection with the dispute or associated with the dispute. The dispute is 2025:JHHC:38746 22 the fundamental thing while something incidental thereto is an adjunct to it. Something incidental, therefore, cannot cut at the root of the main thing to which it is an adjunct [to it].” Para-21:- The abovesaid principle of law has been consistently reiterated in Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd. v. Workmen [(1981) 3 SCC 451 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 515 : AIR 1981 SC 1626] , National Engg. Industries Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [(2000) 1 SCC 371 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 264] , Mukand Ltd. v. Staff & Officers' Assn. [(2004) 10 SCC 460 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 798] and State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Om Prakash Sharma [(2006) 5 SCC 123 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 930] . Para-22:- It is thus clear that the appropriate Government is empowered to make a reference under Section 10 of the Act only when “industrial dispute exists” or “is apprehended between the parties”. Similarly, it is also clear that the Tribunal while answering the reference has to confine its inquiry to the question(s) referred and has no jurisdiction to travel beyond the question(s) or/and the terms of the reference while answering the reference. A fortiori, no inquiry can be made on those questions, which are not specifically referred to the Tribunal while answering the reference.” 33. Therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India passed in the case of Oshiar Prasad and Ors. vs. Employers in relation to Management of Sudamdih Coal Washery of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad, Jharkhand reported in (2015) 4 SCC 71 the Tribunal has to decide as to whether any industrial dispute exist or not and the Tribunal cannot travel beyond the question and/or the terms of reference while answering the reference. 34. It has been held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in (2014) 1 SCC 536 at para-16 as follows:- “16. The Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act is a creature of that statute. It acquires jurisdiction on the basis of reference made to it. The Tribunal has to confine itself within the 2025:JHHC:38746 23 scope of the subject-matter of reference and cannot travel beyond the same. This is the view taken by this Court in a number of cases including in National Engg. Industries Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [(2000) 1 SCC 371 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 264] . It is for this reason that it becomes the bounden duty of the appropriate Government to make the reference appropriately which is reflective of the real/exact nature of “dispute” between the parties.” 35. It has been held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukand Ltd. vs. Mukand Staff and Officers Association reported in (2004) 10 SCC 460 at para-23 and 51 as follows:- “Para-23:- We have already referred to the order of reference dated 17-2-1993 in paragraph supra. The dispute referred to by the order of reference is only in respect of workmen employed by the appellant Company. It is, therefore, clear that the Tribunal, being a creature of the reference, cannot adjudicate matters not within the purview of the dispute actually referred to it by the order of reference. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal could not have adjudicated the issue of salaries of the employees who are not workmen under the Act nor could it have covered such employees by its award. Even assuming, without admitting, that the reference covered the non-workmen, the Tribunal, acting within its jurisdiction under the Act, could not have adjudicated the dispute insofar as it related to the “non-workmen”. Para-51:- It was not open to the High Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, to modify an award which, at its very basis, was flawed as it lacked proper application of the fundamentals of wage adjudication. The Tribunal, in this case, has exceeded its jurisdiction. It has embarked upon an enquiry against non-workmen and, therefore, the decision of the Tribunal is a non-compliance with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the determination by a Tribunal on a question other than the one which statute directs it to decide, would be a decision not under the provisions of the Act and, therefore, in exercise of its jurisdiction is liable to be set aside.” 36. It has been held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Vandana Joshi reported in 2010 2025:JHHC:38746 24 (2) MahLJ 22 : 2009 (0) AIJEL-MH148154 at para-12 to 19 as follows:- “Para-12:- In the present case, the work that was being rendered by the first respondent and for which she was employed as a Personal Financial Consultant cannot be regarded as work of a clerical nature. The Court must have regard to the dominant nature of the work or duties assigned. The dominant nature of work or duties for which the first respondent was engaged cannot be regarded as stereotypical, without an element of initiative or creativeness, which is the test which is elucidated in the judgment in Sonepat Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra). On the contrary the work which was assigned to the first respondent clearly shows that she was intrinsically associated with the provision of a high level of customer service to the customers of the bank. At one level the first respondent constituted a public interface for the bank with its customers while at another level the first respondent had to ensure that all the processes and mechanisms of the bank were duly complied with in relation to banking transactions. During her evidence the first respondent in fact admitted in terms that the job description included work that would contribute to the business of the bank. The first respondent admitted that a term deposit database was provided to her and the purpose of giving such a database was basically for generating and securing new business opportunities. While doing such work the first respondent undoubtedly had to do incidental work including dealing with net banking requests, requests for closure of accounts or change of name and the management of the information system and data entry. What the Court must have due regard to, however, is the overall nature of the duties and responsibilities that are attached to the job. The duties and responsibilities that were attached to the job of the first respondent were not of a clerical nature. As an employee engaged in contributing to the business of the bank the first respondent was recruited to perform duties which cannot be regarded of a clerical nature. Para-13:- The judgment of the Supreme Court in Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. R.S. Bhatia, (1975) 4 SCC 696 : AIR 1975 SC 1898 upon which reliance was placed by the first respondent is clearly distinguishable. That was a case where the question as to whether the first respondent was a workman was concluded by the principles of res 2025:JHHC:38746 25 judicata since it had been decided in an earlier proceeding between the same parties. Besides this, the evidence on the record showed that the employee in his capacity as an accountant used to sign the salary bills of the staff, including himself, even while performing the duties of a clerk. The Supreme Court held that this did not render the employee being one employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity. The judgment is distinguishable. Para-14:- During the course of her submissions, the first respondent sought to place reliance on the cross- examination of the two witnesses who deposed on behalf of the bank. MW 1, during the course of her cross- examination admitted that the first respondent did not sanction leave and that she was not aware as to whether the first respondent could initiate proceedings against an employee of the bank. The Tribunal has during the course of its award placed a great deal of emphasis on the fact that the first respondent could also not recommend leave nor could she initiate disciplinary action against other employees. The fact that an employee is not vested with the power to sanction leave or to initiate disciplinary proceedings is not conclusive of the question as to whether the work that is performed by the employee falls within one of the categories stipulated in section 2(s). Whether leave can be sanctioned and whether disciplinary proceedings can be initiated may in a given case be one of the circumstances which may be considered in the balance. The balance, however, has to be drawn on the basis of the overall nature of the duties and responsibilities performed and the dominant nature of the work that is performed by an employee. Virtual offices are now a reality and paperless transactions are no longer a novelty. Managerial organisation today is radically different from the pre- liberalization era. Tests of control which were appropriate to a society thirty years ago have become relics of an era which India has left behind in the annals of history. The law has kept pace with the times by recognizing that in order to determine whether a person is a workman under section 2(s), contemporary notions of business cannot be stratified by notions of economic organisation developed for an era which is no more. Para-15:- In the judgment of this Court in Inthru Nororiha. v. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd., 2005 (2) Mh.L.J. 884 : 2005 (III) LLJ 12 the Court had occasion to take note of the rapid evolution in business resultant upon the swift changes of technology in modern times. The Court cautioned 2025:JHHC:38746 26 against placing the discourse on section 2(s) into a straitjacket, in the following observations: “In deciding a case such as the present, the Court must be careful not to place its construction of legal categories into a straitjacket. Business in recent years has been marked by rapid organisational changes. The swift evolution of technology has led to a quantum change in the business environment. Modern managements have to alter the structure of organisation in order to meet the exigencies of the time. Every employee in the managerial cadre may not necessarily have the power to appoint or dismiss personnel nor indeed would an employee engaged mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity always have the power to sanction leave applications. Similarly, the test of the existence of control over subordinates may be applicable in certain factual situations, but not necessarily in every conceivable case. In others, control over subordinates may not necessarily be by all personnel in the managerial cadre. The number and strength of the subordinate staff depends upon the nature of the business that is being conducted. It would, for instance, be wholly inappropriate to apply the same test which would govern the organisation of a traditional form of manufacturing business to a business founded on software, biogenetics or a business at the cutting edge of technology. The interpretation of section 2(s) must be such as would not lead to stultifying innovation, development and change in managerial practice. Business managers should have a high degree of latitude to promote efficiency in a competitive business environment. Courts are of course vigilant to deal with subterfuge. The important thing for the Court is to evaluate the position of an employee with reference to the nature of his duties in the context of the business where those duties are performed”. Para-16:- In that case the Court held that the duties and functions showed that the work was anything but clerical. Similarly, in Dhruba Kumar Changkokoti. v. Travel Corporation of India Ltd., 2000 (II) CLR 644 a learned Single Judge of this Court observed that a person who was employed to promote tourism of a travel company in Eastern Europe could not be regarded as a workman within the meaning of section 2(s). Though such a person had no power to recruit or terminate employees or to control employees of the organization, he was regarded as discharging a part of the function on behalf of the employer viz. looking after the business and promoting it in Eastern Europe. In Mukesh Tripathi's case (supra) the Supreme Court emphasized that a 2025:JHHC:38746 27 person who had been recruited to develop the business of the employer could not have done so without being a full fledged officer of the Corporation and would not be a workman within the meaning of section 2(s). The first respondent was appointed to contribute to the development of the business of the Bank. Her duties were plainly not clerical. Para-17:- The second witness who deposed on behalf of the employer, MW 2 deposed to the key responsibilities of the first respondent. During the course of the cross-examination the witness stated that the product team used to decide upon concessions relating to exchange rate fees and that she was unable to recall as to whether the first respondent had no such right. The managerial staff of the bank was to decide the manner in which control over costs was to be made and the witness stated that there were no documents to show that the first respondent had participated in a meeting for controlling costs. The witness also stated that the first respondent was not the final authority for opening bank accounts; that she had no power to sanction leave or to take disciplinary action. Para-18:- The fact that in an organizational structure the employee, in the course of the decision making process, is subject to checks and balances is not a matter which would establish that she/he is a workman within the meaning of section 2(s). Modern forms of business in corporate organizations put into place a carefully crafted process of checks and balances. Rarely, if ever, would an employee have authoritarian control over business decisions. Employees are made subject to checks and balances both at the lateral and vertical level. Managerial decisions are subject to verification and approval. The fact that decisions of an employee are subject to verification or subject to a system of controls and balances does not establish that the employee is a workman within the meaning of section 2(s). Managers do not become workmen because their decisions are structured by processes and approvals. Absolute autonomy is not the norm in managerial decision making. Nor does the law insist on absolute discretion or absolute autonomy for a person to be a manager. Basically the answer to the question must depend upon the dominant nature of the duties and responsibilities. Para-19:- The Industrial Tribunal has applied a superficial approach to the entire problem in determining as to whether the first respondent was a workman within the meaning of section 2(s). The Industrial Tribunal ought to have travelled beyond a superficial analysis of whether or not the first respondent was entitled to recommend leave or to initiate 2025:JHHC:38746 28 disciplinary action. That the Tribunal has failed to do so has led to a manifest failure of justice. The Tribunal has failed to consider material aspects of the evidence on the record and to apply tests which are now settled in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court to which a reference has been made in the earlier part of this judgment. In the circumstances, the interference of this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 is necessitated to correct a patent error on the part of the Tribunal in the exercise of its jurisdiction.” 37. It has been held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Management of M/s Sonepat Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited Versus Ajit Singh reported in (2005) 3 SCC 232 at para-16 and 17 as follows:- “Para-16:- Thus, a person who performs one or the other jobs mentioned in the aforementioned provisions only would come within the purview of the definition of workman. The job of a clerk ordinarily implies stereotype work without power of control or dignity or initiative or creativeness. The question as to whether the employee has been performing a clerical work or not is required to be determined upon arriving at a finding as regards the dominant nature thereof. With a view to give effect to the expression to do “any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work”, the job of the employee concerned must fall within one or the other category thereof. It would, therefore, not be correct to contend that merely because the employee had not been performing any managerial or supervisory duties, ipso facto he would be a workman. Para-17:- In Miss A. Sundarambal v. Govt. of Goa, Daman and Dieu and Others [(1988) 4 SCC 42 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 892] teachers serving in an educational institution being not found to be performing any duty within the aforementioned category have been held not to be workmen. Similarly, an advertising manager, a chemist employed in a sugar mill, gate sergeant in charge of watch and ward staff in a tannery, a welfare officer in a commercial educational institution have also not been held to be workmen. The respondent had not been performing any stereotype job. His job involved creativity. He not only used to render legal opinions on a subject but also used to draft pleadings on behalf of the appellant as also represent 2025:JHHC:38746 29 it before various courts/authorities. He would also discharge quasi-judicial functions as an enquiry officer in departmental enquiries against the workmen. Such a job, in our considered opinion, would not make him a workman.” 38. It is further evident that the workman-claimant had never objected on being promoted on the post of the Assistant Manager on 17.05.2010 and he continuously worked from the month of January, 2010 till November 2016 or till last week of January, 2017. Therefore, the finding of the Labour Court is not sustainable that the Respondent No.3 is a Workman and accordingly, the finding of the Labour Court is liable to be set aside on this score alone. 39. Even from perusal of the pay revision letter dated 17.05.2010, it is evident that the Respondent No.3 has taken the Pay Revision of Assistant Manager and not on the post of Senior Executive-System. 40. From oral evidence of A.W-1-Anil Kumar, M.W-1-Syed Ali Hashir Zaidi and documentary evidence i.e. Exhibit-1, Exhibit-8, Exhibit-9, Exhibit-16 and also the Exhibit-29, Exhibit- 30, Exhibit-31, Exhibit-32, Exhibit-33, Exhibit-34 and Exhibit- 35, it is evident that the Respondent-Workman had become Assistant Manager and was working on Supervisory/Managerial post and as such he cannot be treated as „Workman in the capacity of Working Journalist‟ and as such the impugned Award passed by the learned Labour Court is liable to be aside. 41. Even the letter dated 29.05.2015 (Exhibit-C) shows that the Respondent No.3 has been included as a part of the “Multi Media Content Management Division” but his designation has not been shown. However, in the letter dated 29.05.2015 and letter dated 02.06.2014 issued by the petitioner-Hindustan Media Ventures 2025:JHHC:38746 30 Limited to the respondent-Anil Kumar (i.e. the Workman) has been shown as Administrative/Managerial post in the Department of I.T and his location is shown at Ranchi. 42. Exhibit-1 is the appointment letter dated 15.01.2003 issued by Searchlite Publishing House Limited to the Workman- Respondent No.3 showing his appointment as “Senior Executive System” on the consolidated salary of Rs.4,000/ + Rs.2525/- as Housing Rent Allowance, total Rs.6525 + annual bonus of Rs.6,000/ and P.F Rs.480/. Thus, the total gross salary for one month was Rs.7505/-. 43. Exhibit-2 is the pay revision letter dated 21.06.2004 issued by Searchlite Publishing House Limited. 44. Exhibit-3 is the salary certificate for the year 2006-07 (April to March) and total gross salary is shown as Rs.1,16,868/-. 45. Exhibit-29 is the monthly salary slips of the Workman- Respondent No.3 for the month of January-2010 to December 2010 which shows that the claimant-Respondent No.3 was working on the post of Assistant Manager. Exhibit-30 is monthly salary slips of the Workman- Respondent No.3 for the month of January-2011 to December 2011 issued by the petitioner company which shows that the claimant-Respondent No.3 was working as an Assistant Manager. 46. Exhibit-31 is monthly salary slips of the Workman- Respondent No.3 for the month of January-2012 to December 2012 showing him as an Assistant Manager. Exhibit-32 is monthly salary slips of Respondent No.3 for the month of January-2013 to December 2013 issued by the petitioner company showing him on the post of as Assistant Manager whereas Exhibit-33 also is the monthly pay slip of 2025:JHHC:38746 31 Respondent No.3 for the month of January-2014 to December 2014 showing him as an Assistant Manager. Exhibit-34 is monthly pay slips of the Workman- Respondent No.3 for the month of January-2015 to December 2015 working him on the post of Assistant Manager. Exhibit-35 is monthly pay slips of the Workman- Respondent No.3 for the month of January-2016 to November 2016 showing him on the post of Assistant Manager. 47. Therefore, in view of Exhibit-29 to Exhibit-35, it is evident that claimant-Respondent No.3 (i.e. Workman) was working on the post of Assistant Manager with the petitioner Management from January 2010 till November 2016. 48. Exhibit-16 is the letter dated 27.01.2017 by which the Respondent No.3 has been informed that his services with the company have been discontinued with immediate effect in accordance with Clause-V of Employment Letter dated 15.01.2003 issued to him. Further an amount of Rs.50,258/- was paid towards the notice period in his salary Account shortly and he was advised to get in touch with his HR Representative immediately for handing over the company assets in his possession and also to complete other exit formalities. The above termination letter dated 27.01.2017 was issued by one Sharad Saxena authorized signatory of Hindustan Media Ventures Limited. 49. Even in the Exhibit-16, it reveals that a sum of Rs.50,258/- was paid in lieu of his two months‟ salary towards the notice period in terms of Clause-V of the appointment letter dated 15.01.2003. Therefore, it is evident that the services of the respondent-workman was discontinued or terminated simpliciter. 2025:JHHC:38746 32 50. It transpires that the respondent-workman filed representation on 23.02.2017 by demanding the arrears of salary of Rs.16,15,176/- (Exhibit-17) in terms of Majethia Wage Board Recommendation for the period of November-2011 to December-2016 and has also enclosed the calculation chart from November-2011 to December-2016 as per Majethia salary calculation. However, from perusal of Exhibit-18 which is letter dated 24.03.2017 send by the respondent-workman to Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Conciliation Officer, Doranda, it would appear that he had demanded Rs.16,15,176/- from November- 2011 to 31.12.2016 as per Majithia Board Recommendation. However, he has also shown is designation as an Assistant Manager-IT. 51. Exhibit-B is personal information sheet of the Respondent No.3 showing his employment in the petitioner Management company having extra-curricular interest as IT Software + Hardware. Exhibit-C is letter dated 29.05.2015 issued by the petitioner Management company to the Workman-Respondent No.3 which reveals that he was doing job in the Administrative/Managerial in IT Department. Even Exhibit-D is another roll sheet of the Respondent No.3 dated 02.06.2014 which reveals that the Respondent No.3 was working in the IT Department as Administrative/Managerial post. 52. It further appears from the Written Statement of the Management Petitioner that work of the Workman was assigned to “Manage external Vendors for timely uptime of communication links such as lease line and PRI to ensure 2025:JHHC:38746 33 business does not get impact.” The workman was also assigned the job to “Manage and train allocated resources hired in the team to provide overall direction and guidance.” Therefore, this shows that the Workman was acting in Administrative capacity/Supervisory capacity. 53. From the evidence of M.W-1-Syed Ali Hashir Zaidi, it would appear that the Workman was lastly working in the capacity of Assistant Manager and was performing duties in Managerial/Administrative capacity. The Respondent No.3 was issued Role Sheet dated 02.06.2014 and 29.05.2015 which prescribes him to be responsible for maintaining the I.T System, network and various others including the work responsible for maintaining Data Center, which are reproduced herein below:- “2. Manage external vendors for timely uptime of communication links such as lease line and PRI to ensure business does not get impacted. 3. Manage and train allocated resources hired in the team to provide overall direction and guidance. 4. Develop an effective process to ensure timely technical support to internal stakeholders for smooth running of business. 5. Proactively contributes to resolve user concerns by providing technical solution within agreed SLAs and as per the stipulated escalation matrix. 6. Exercise good judgment and technical skills to diagnose hardware and software faults and troubleshoot the system & network problems. 7. Plan and manage housekeeping of different servers like backup, restoration, deletion etc. to ensure the business is supported by all data- real time and past. 8. Contribute to business by ensuring page production runs smoothly through the timely release of interest editions/epaper on web. 9. Responsible for managing data centres in collaboration with the external designated teams.” Therefore, the evidence of M.W-1 reveals that the Respondent No.3 was working on the Managerial post. 2025:JHHC:38746 34 54. It further reveals from the Exhibit-29, Exhibit-30, Exhibit- 31 and Exhibit-32, Exhibit-33, Exhibit-34 and Exhibit-35 that the Respondent No.3 was posted as Assistant Manager and he had executed various service contracts with the petitioner company time to time. Hence the Respondent No.3-Workman may not be an employee under the provisions of Section 2 (dd) of W.J. Act. 55. Thus, the learned Labour Court has committed error by declaring and holding that the Respondent No.3 was a Workman, although the Labour Court has himself noticed that the Respondent No.3 was promoted to the post of Senior Executive on 15.01.2003, Assistant Manager on 17.05.2010 from the post of Junior Executive. The post of Assistant Manager in the year 2016 itself indicative that the status of the Respondent No.3 has already been changed and he had not objected to his promotion. However, the learned Labour Court has failed to consider this aspect that the Workman-Respondent No.3 has been promoted to the post of Assistant Manager. Hence the plea of the Workman that he was performing the job on clerical basis is not tenable. 56. Therefore, the finding of the Labour Court on the Issue No.I, II and III are set aside and the case is remitted to the Labour Court for deciding the issue afresh in accordance with law. Issues No.IV, V and VI:- 57. This Court from going through the records, finds that there is no discussion of evidence of Workman and Management on the point of Ranchi Establishment of the petitioner company as to whether it can be treated as Ranchi Unit or Pan India Establishment of Hindustan Media Venture ( in short to be 2025:JHHC:38746 35 referred as HMV). The learned Labour Court merely on the basis of definition of Section 2(10) of Section 1 has held that “Newspaper Establishment” shall have the same meaning assigned to them in the Act and Wage Board Recommendation has not defined Newspaper Establishment. 58. The Labour Court has wrongly held that the petitioner company has Pan India existence and there are many local editions through local Newspaper production or publication unit and even Ranchi Unit of the petitioner company has no independent existence rather entire financial transaction takes place in the light of direction issued by the Delhi office. It also held that there is provision of transfer of Newspaper employee from one Unit to another Unit spread over in all parts of the country. 59. So far as oral evidence is concerned, the Workman- Respondent No.3 has been examined as W.W-1 and who has supported his claim. However, he has stated that the annual turnover of Ranchi Unit of the petitioner company is more than One Thousand Crores and hence it falls under Class-I category in terms of Majithia Wage Board Recommendation. 60. However, M.W-2-Syed Ali Hashir Zaidi has stated during his evidence that Ranchi Unit of Petitioner Company is actually Class-V. Even M.W-2-Sanjeet Kumar Singh has been examined to prove the annual turnover of the petitioner company and he has stated that Ranchi Newspaper Establishment of the company and its turnover falls under Class-VIII category and as per Section II 3 (ii) of Chapter XIX of M.W.B recommendation, it would be stepped up of two classes and finally be placed under Class-VI rather Class-I. He has further stated that claimant has fallaciously 2025:JHHC:38746 36 self-calculated and submitted the Form-C to make baseless demand of Rs.16,15,176/- (Rs.Sixteen Lakhs Fifteen thousand One hundred Seventy Six. During cross-examination, he stated that he is not aware of previous employment of the Workman-Respondent No.3. Wage increment is done by the office. He has not prepared the payment as per Majithia Wage Board recommendation. 61. Exhibit-A is the profit and loss accounts for March-2008 for the financial year 2007-08 by which it reveals that the turnover of the petitioner Management was Rs.4,63,08,338/-. 62. It has been held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India reported in AIR 1995 (SC) 965 at para-6 and 10 as follows:- “Para-6:- The main contention of the petitioners in the present cases/petitions is that this Court in Express Newspapers case (AIR 1958 SC 578) supra has accepted the contention that in the absence of the requirement of looking into the capacity of industry on an industry-cum- region basis, the entire Act would be violative of the Constitution. Hence the Court had in that case read into the provisions of Section 10(4) [the then Section 9(1)] the requirement of looking into the capacity of the industry to pay on an industry-cum-region basis. The necessity to read the said requirement into Section 10(4) has not been changed by the amendments to Sections 2(d) and 10(4). If it is held that the amendment to Section 2(d) would permit an all-India fixation of wages, taking into consideration the gross revenue of the company or other independent companies which are sought to be clubbed, the provisions of Section 2(d), as amended, would be violative of the petitioners' right under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution inasmuch as such fixing up of wages would bring about the situation as it prevailed under the first Wage Board resulting in ignoring the economic viability of the weaker units of the company rendering it impossible to run the said units. It would also make it impossible for the companies to start new newspapers since they would not be viable and would not be in a position to compete with other publications in the 2025:JHHC:38746 37 same locality. The grouping of the newspapers into chain or multiple units did not imply that the weaker units in those groups must be treated on a par with the stronger units. Any such principle of fixation of wages without taking into consideration the burden that would be imposed upon weaker unit of a particular newspaper establishment would be erroneous. Hence it is contended that the amendment to Section 2(d) would be subject to the provisions of Section 10(4) as it stood and as it stands today. Section 2(d) is only a definition clause and the provisions of Section 10(4) are mandatory. Hence, harmonious construction of the provisions of Section 2(d) and Section 10(4) is necessary. Construed thus, it would enable the Wage Board to fix the wages on all-India basis taking into consideration the industry as a whole and at the same time, the capacity of individual unit. That would enable the Wage Board to classify the individual unit first into its proper class and then upgrade it reasonably if it belongs to a multiple or chain group. In this connection, it is pointed out that all the Wage Boards in the past except the Palekar Wage Board which dealt with the question on a different footing, fixed wages on the above basis. The said Wage Boards thus implemented the aforesaid decision of this Court. It is further pointed out that the present Wage Board itself has recognised this principle and while classifying the newspaper establishments in para 11 of Section II of Part I of Chapter IX of the Report on the basis of the gross revenue into 10 classes, it has made an exception in paragraph 6(2) of the said section in case of newspaper establishments falling in Classes VI to IX by directing that they will not be stepped up by more than two classes as a whole in clubbing of gross revenue as is directed in sub- para (1) of the said para 6. However, the Board has given no reason why similarly for the establishments falling in Classes I-A to V, the same consideration should not be shown. On the other hand, the Board without giving any reasons, has chosen to treat every unit of the newspaper establishment falling in the latter classes, viz., Classes I-A to V as being of the same class to which the establishment itself belongs on the basis of its gross revenue. This has manifestly resulted in the weaker units of the newspaper establishments belonging to the said classes being ranked with the highest in the same class, thus, crippling the weaker units with the heavy unbearable financial burden and forcing them to close. Such classification directly 2025:JHHC:38746 38 offends the petitioners' rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Among the other infirmities which are pointed out in the impugned award, the first is that while classifying the establishments, the benefit of paragraph 12 of Section II of Part I of Chapter IX is not given to them by ascertaining whether their advertisement revenue is less or more than 45 per cent of its gross revenue. If this was done and where it was found that it was less than 45 per cent of the gross revenue, the establishments concerned would have been placed in the class next below that in which they are classified on the basis of their gross revenue. Secondly, the award while calculating the financial capacity, has made no provision even for a reasonable depreciation and to that extent the estimates of the capacity of the establishments to pay are seriously flawed. Thirdly, the award has not considered the burden of retrospective effect it has given to its recommendations from 1-1-1988. The burden on the establishments from 1-1-1988 to 31-12- 1989 is enormous and the Board was duty-bound to calculate the said burden to find out whether the establishments were capable of bearing the same. Lastly, the award has also not taken into consideration the costs of newsprint which had in the meanwhile gone up by about 76.6 per cent. We find much substance in the contention that the Board has arbitrarily clubbed together the different units of the same establishment and classified all of them with the highest of the class to which its top-most unit belongs so far as Classes I-A to V are concerned and has not followed in respect of those classes, its own guideline given in the said paragraph 6(2) in respect of the establishments which belong to Classes VI to IX. The Wage Board in paragraph 11 of Section II of Part I of Chapter IX of its Report has classified the different newspaper establishments on the basis of their gross revenue as follows: Class Gross Revenue IA Rs.100 crores and above I Rs.50 crores and above but less than Rs.100 crores II Rs. 20 crores and above but less than 50 crores III Rs. 10 crores and above but less than Rs.20 crores. 2025:JHHC:38746 39 In Annexure V of the Report, the Board has catalogued the effect of clubbing the different units of the same establishment at different places on the basis of average gross revenue for the past 3 years. The annexure itself depicts the inequitable results of the grouping. We may as an illustration refer to the effect of clubbing of the units of some of the petitioner-establishments which are mentioned there. Taking the case of Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd., it has its units at Bombay, Delhi, Ahmedabad, Calcutta, Patna, Jaipur, Pune, Madras and also printing presses at Madras, Patna, Jaipur and Lucknow and its total gross revenue is Rs 10,238.72 crores. Its Bombay, Delhi and Ahmedabad units have been classified as I-A, although their gross revenue is less than Rs 100 crores, 50 crores and 5 crores respectively and they would properly fall according to the guidelines of the Board in Classes I, II and V respectively. Similarly, the units of the company at Calcutta, Patna, Bangalore and Jaipur are classified in Categories IV, V, V & V respectively, although on the basis of their gross revenue they would fall in the Categories VI, VII, VII and IX respectively. Coming now to the second establishment, viz., Express Newspapers, they have their two units at Bombay, one at Madurai and another at Hyderabad. The gross revenue of all the units was Rs 7918.18 crores. They are all consigned to Class I, although their main unit at Bombay and their unit at Madurai belong to Class II and their subsidiary unit at Bombay and their unit at Hyderabad belong to Classes IV and V respectively. It is not necessary to multiply these instances. According to us, in view of the definition of “newspaper establishment” in Section 2(d) and the Explanation to Section 10(4) of the Act and also in view of the fifth and sixth propositions of law laid down by this Court in Express Newspapers case [1959 SCR 12 : AIR 1958 SC 578 : (1961) 1 LLJ 339] as extracted above, the IV Rs. 5 crores and above but less than Rs.10 crores. V Rs. 2 crores and above but less than Rs.5 crores. VI Rs.1 crore and above but less than Rs.2 crores VII Rs.50 lakhs and above but less than Rs.1 crore VIII Rs.25 lakhs and above but less than Rs.50 lakhs IX Less than Rs.25 lakhs 2025:JHHC:38746 40 units of an establishment which has branches all over India, can be clubbed together for the purpose of fixation of wages on all-India basis. Since all the units of an establishment are not expected to fare similarly, uniform pay scales for the employees in all the units can be prescribed taking into consideration the financial capacity of the establishment as a whole. The instances pointed out above are the result of the clubbing of the different units of the same establishment. However, there is much force in the contention of the petitioners that the principle of fixation of the wages on all-India basis has not been applied by the Board with uniform yardstick as is evident from paragraph 6(2) of Section II of Part I of Chapter IX of the Report. Whereas the units of the newspaper establishments falling in any of the Classes VI to IX, as detailed above, on the basis of their own gross revenue are, for the fixation of wages not to be stepped up by more than two classes, the units of the newspaper establishments falling in Classes I-A to V are all to be classified as belonging to the class to which the said establishment belongs on the basis of the gross revenue of all the said units. The result of this discrimination is that for the purposes of fixing the wage scales, the units of the newspaper establishments belonging to Classes VI to IX would not be considered as belonging to the said classes but to the classes which are only two grades above the class to which the said units on the basis of their own revenue properly belong. On the other hand, the units of the establishments belonging to Classes I-A to V would all be considered as belonging to the class to which the establishment itself belongs. The Board has not given any reason as to why while applying the principle of uniform wage scales to all units of an establishment on all- India basis, it has made the discrimination in question between the newspaper establishments belonging to Classes I-A to V and those belonging to Classes VI to IX. The respondents also could not offer any satisfactory explanation or advance a plausible contention to defend the said discrimination. We are, therefore, of the view that the impugned award to be made legally enforceable will have to be modified by extending the limitation of upgradation up to the maximum of two classes laid down in the said para 6(2) also to the newspaper establishments falling in Classes I-A to V. 2025:JHHC:38746 41 Para-10:- In view of what we have held above, we allow all the writ petitions and transfer cases except TC No. 6 of 1990, only to the extent indicated below. The benefit given in paragraph 6(2) of Section II of Part I of Chapter IX will extend to all classes of the newspaper establishments as categorised in paragraph 11 of the said Report and the units of the newspaper establishments in all the said classes shall not be stepped up by more than two classes over and above the classes to which they belong according to their own gross revenue. In view of our above conclusion, the award as modified, should be implemented by all the establishments w.e.f. 1-1-1988 and the respondent-employees should be paid wages w.e.f. the said date, i.e., 1-1-1988. Where, however, there have been settlements between the management and the employees the payment of wages and of arrears of wages will be governed by the terms of those settlements. There will be no order as to costs. In view of the above order by which TC No. 5 of 1990 is allowed as above, SLP (C) No. 16356 of 1990 filed by the same petitioners in this Court, does not survive. In view of the order passed above in main matters, TC No. 6 of 1990 stands disposed of, as above. In view of our order in the main matters, as above, none of the interlocutory applications survives.” 63. It has been held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of ABP Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in AIR 2014 (SC) 1228: (2014) 3 SCC 327 at para-56, 66, 67 and 70 to 73 as follows:- “Para-56. Chapter XIV, titled “Capacity to Pay of the Newspaper Industry (A Financial Assessment)” of the Justice Majithia Report, elaborately discusses on the aspect of capacity to pay. However, it is the stand of the petitioners that although the Report purportedly examines the capacity to pay, such evaluation is directly contrary to the principles and accepted material factors which the Report itself identifies as governing a legally sound consideration of the capacity to pay. The relevant portion of the Report in pp. 101 to 102 is as under: “The gross revenue of newspaper establishments comprises revenue through advertisements, circulation and other sources relating to newspaper activities and miscellaneous income accrued from investments, interests, 2025:JHHC:38746 42 rent, etc. The gross revenue can be taken as one of the indicators to judge the health of the newspaper establishments. Strictly speaking several discounted factors are required to be taken into consideration from the gross revenues to make actual assessments of the capacity of the newspaper establishments. But in absence of such parameters, it was decided to rely broadly on gross revenue.” Para-66:- It is further seen that the Wage Board has recommended grant of 100% neutralisation of dearness allowance. The Fifth Pay Commission granted the same in 1996. Since then, public sector undertakings, banks and even the private sector are all granting 100% neutralisation of dearness allowance. The reference to decisions prior to 1995 is irrelevant. Para-67:- Lastly, the contention of the petitioners that the Wage Boards have not taken into account regional variations in submitting their recommendations is also not correct. It is clear from the Report that the Wage Boards have categorised HRA and transport allowance into X, Y and Z category regions, which reflects that the cost of accommodation and transport in different regions in the country was considered. Furthermore, there is gradation of variable pay and allowances according to the size of the establishments wherein smaller establishments are required to pay those at a lower rate compared to larger establishments. Hence, we are satisfied that the Wage Boards followed certain well laid down principles and norms while making recommendations. Para-70:- Thus, it is the prerogative of the Central Government to accept or reject the recommendations of the Wage Boards. There is no scope for hearing the parties once again by the Central Government while accepting or modifying the recommendations, except that the modifications are of such nature which alter the character of the recommendations and such modification is likely to affect the parties. The mere fact that in the present case, the Government has not accepted a few recommendations will not automatically affect the validity of the entire Report. Further, the Government has not accepted all those suggestions including those pertaining to retirement age, etc. as these are beyond the mandate for which the Wage Boards were constituted. Regarding fixation of pay, assured career development, there have been proposals in the recommendations which are in the manner of providing higher pay scale after completion of certain 2025:JHHC:38746 43 number of years which cannot be treated as time-bound promotion. Para-71:- 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. Para-72:-Consequently, all the writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs. Para-73:- In view of 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.” 64. It further transpires that as per Para-3(a)(i) of Section 2 of Majithia Wage Board Recommendation, the newspaper can be classified after clubbing different department, branches and centers of the Newspaper Establishment on the basis of their gross revenue and it can be stepped up to two level above only. 65. The Labour Court has inferred that Ranchi Unit of the petitioner company would come in the category of Class-I merely on the ground that publisher of Ranchi Unit of the newspaper is also publisher of same newspaper which is published in Pan India with local variation. 66. Thus, finding of the Labour Court is completely in contravention of the judgment reported in (2015) 4 SCC 71 (Oshiar Prasad and Ors. vs. Employers in relation to Management of Sudamdih Coal Washery of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad, Jharkhand). 67. Thus, in view of the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court the Ranchi Unit of petitioner company cannot be classified as Class-I Unit and the unit of the Petitioner company-Management has to be classified on the basis of revenue earned in Ranchi 2025:JHHC:38746 44 District and not on the basis of Pan India basis as this will weaken the establishment of Ranchi Unit of the petitioner company comparing to revenue earned by the Delhi. In the light of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India, Ranchi unit of the petitioner company as per its income will come near around Category-VI and at best it can be step up to two units i.e. Category-IV based on the income of the local Ranchi unit and which has to be decided by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court and thus the finding of the Labour Court on Issue No.IV is liable to be set aside. 68. So far as Issue Nos.V and VI are concerned, it would appear that there is no evidence on record that annual turnover of Hindustan Media Venture is more than Rs.1,000/- Crores produced on behalf of the Respondent No.3. Moreover, the Management has produced Exhibit-A which shows the total turnover of the Ranchi Establishment for the financial year 2007- 08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively was Rs.4,63,08,338/- (i.e.Four Crores, Sixty Three Lakhs, Eight Thousand, Three Hundred Thirty Eight) for the year 2007-08, Rs.4,87, 59,818/- (Rs.Four Crores, Eighty Seven Lakhs, Fifty Nine Thousand, Eight Hundred Eighteen) for the year 2008-09 and Rs.13,91,54,160/- (Rs.Thirteen Crore, Ninty One Lakhs, Fifty Four Thousand One Hundred Sixty). 69. However, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court has held that turnover of the petitioner company is above Rs.1000/- Crore which is beyond the record. 70. This Court further finds that, there is complete non- appreciation of documents filed on behalf of the Management (i.e. petitioner company) marked as Exhibit-A on the part of the learned Labour Court, Ranchi. 2025:JHHC:38746 45 71. It further reveals that Management Witness Sanjeet Kumar Singh examined as M.W-2, has stated that dues of the Respondent No.3 can be calculated only on the basis of Class-VI of the Majithia Wage Board Recommendation and on the basis of turnover of Ranchi Establishment. However, the learned Labour Court rejected the said plea and has disbelieved the evidence of M.W-2. 72. Thus, the finding of the Labour Court on Issue No. IV, V and Issue No.VI are also set aside and the case is remitted to the learned Labour Court to decide the Issue No.IV, V and VI afresh. 73. Accordingly, W.P.(L) No.2970 of 2020 is allowed with the observation mentioned above and stands disposed of. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated:10.11.2025. Saket/- NAFR