1 CGHC010298852026 2026:CGHC:35834 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 121 of 2026 1 - Mohammed Shah, S/o- Marhoom Zahoor Ahmed, Aged About 70 Years R/o- Mohammed Shah (Journalist), In Front Of Government Primary School, Nawagaon Ward, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) --- Petitioner versus 1 - Naidunia, A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Ltd., 3rd Floor, Krishna Glory Complex, Sai Nagar Hotel, Behind Hotel Babylon Inn, Jail Road, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent and WPL No. 129 of 2026 1 - Nasim Mohammad S/o Hasim Mohammad, Aged About 35 Years R/o C/o P.C. Rath, B-6, Sales Tax Colony, Khamardih, Shankar Nagar, Raipur District , Raipur, (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1 - Naidunia, A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Ltd., 3rd Floor, Krishna Glory Complex, Sai Nagar Hotel, Behind Hotel Babylon Inn, Jail Road, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent and WPL No. 128 of 2026 1 - Bhanwar Lal Bothra S/o Late Mangilal Bothra Aged About 69 Years R/o Pankaj Printers, Main Road, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1 - Naidunia, A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Ltd. 3rd Floor, Krishna Glory Complex, Sai Nagar Hotel, Behind Hotel Babylon Inn, Jail Road, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent and REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH DN: cn=REKHA SINGH, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.08.13 13:56:37 +0530 2 WPL No. 127 of 2026 1 - Mohammad Imran Khan S/o Mohammad Umar Khan Aged About 46 Years R/o Near The House Of Nag Patwari, Banglapra, District Narayanpur C.G. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - Naidunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Lid. 3rd Floor, Krishna Glory Complex, Sai Nagar Hotel Behind Hotel Babylon Inn, Jail Road, Raipur District Raipur C. G. --- Respondent and WPL No. 125 of 2026 1 - Gangesh Kumar Dwivedi S/o Dayanand Dwivedi Aged About 51 Years R/o House Board Colony, J. 680, Tilak Nagar, Gudhiyari, Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - Naidunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Ltd., 3rd Floor, Krishna Glory Complex, Sai Nagar Hotel, Behind Hotel Babylon Inn, Jail Road, Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. --- Respondent and WPL No. 124 of 2026 1 - Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o P. L. Sharma Aged About 50 Years R/o House No. 233, Shaanu Kirana Stores, Fafadih, Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - Naidunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Ltd., 3rd Floor, Krishna Glory Complex, Sai Nagar Hotel, Behind Hotel Babylon Inn, Jail Road, Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. --- Respondent and WPL No. 122 of 2026 1 - Gopal Prasad Nishad S/o Motiram Nishad Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Kurud, Silyari, District Raipur (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1 - Naidunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Ltd., 3rd Floor, Krishna Glory Complex, Sai Nagar Hotel, Behind Hotel Babylon Inn, Jail Road, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent 3 For Petitioners : Mr. Yash Mishra, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Rakshit Agarwal,Advocate holding the brief of Mr.Manay Nath Thakur, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13.08.2026 1. Heard. 2. The facts in brief are that the Central Government while exercising power under Sections 9 and 13(C) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (for short Act, 1955) constituted a Board to recommend the pay scale and other admissible benefit to working journalists and non-journalists employees of newspaper establishment. The Central Government vide notification dated 24.10.2008 granted interim relief and directed for payment of 30% amount of basic pay. The Ministry of Labour, Government of India issued notifications on 24.10.2008 and 11.11.2011 under the provisions of Act of 1955 with respect to fixation of wages of employees working under newspaper establishments. Initially, petitioners were employees of Naidunia Media Limited, which got merged with the Jagran Prakashan Limited on 01.04.2012 and all the assets and liabilities were also merged and handed over to Jagran Prakashan Limited. When the respondent failed to extend benefits of notifications dated 24.10.2008 and 11.11.2011, applications were moved by the petitioners before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Raipur and reference was made vide order dated 13.12.2017 framing a question of determination, which reads as under :- " आदकगण क म पकर त अय समर- प कमर (स-शत) और कण उप !ध अ#ध$%यम 1955 क अ!तगत म&'य 4 ( क अ%)स!शआ* क अ%)सर $कत% र+श प% क पत ,-?” 3. The learned Labour Court registered the cases under the Industrial Dispute Act framed specific issue as to “Whether the petitioners are entitled to receive monetary benefits according to recommendation made by Majithia Wage Board or not ?” The reference was answered in negative against the petitioners and the awards passed by the learned Labour Court have been challenged in these writ petitions. 4. Mr. Mishra, Advocate appearing for the petitioners would argue that the question for determination according to reference was entirely different from the issue which has been considered and decided by the learned Labour Court, therefore, the awards passed by the learned Labour Court are bad in law and may be set-aside. 5. On the other hand, learned Advocate appearing for respondent would submit that the entitlement of revised benefits including pay scale is covered with the issue framed by the learned Labour Court and the contention made by Mr. Mishra is misconceived. He would contend that the learned Labour Court has considered question of determination framed by the competent Government and decided it against the petitioners. He would submit that as the petitioners are not entitled for any amount, therefore, there was no question to determine the amount according to the reference made by the competent Government. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7. Perusal of the orders passed by the competent Government under Section 10 5 of Industrial Dispute Act would make it clear that the learned Labour Court was directed to decide the amount payable to the petitioners as per recommendation made by the Majithia Wage Board, whereas, the learned Labour Court decided entitlement of the petitioners, who are employees of the respondent newspaper establishment. 8. It is not in dispute that the learned Labour Court was directed to determine amount payable to the petitioners as per recommendation, but the learned Labour Court failed to consider and decide question for determination referred by the competent Government. The learned Labour Court decided entitlement of the petitioners to receive benefits, therefore, in my opinion, the awards passed by the learned Labour Court are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the impugned awards passed by the learned Labour Court are hereby set-aside. These matters are remitted back to the concerned Labour Court to decide the question for determination framed by the competent Government under the provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act. 9. As the reference was made in the year 2017, the learned Labour Court is directed to conclude the proceeding, preferably within a period of 180 days. The learned Labour Court shall provide sufficient opportunity of hearing to the parties. 10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Rekha