1 2026:CGHC:19012 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 203 of 2025 1 - Santosh Yadav S/o Late Sakharam Yadav Aged About 50 Years R/o Lakhenagar, Gautam Nagar, Infront Of Nagarik Kalyan Samiti Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) 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(s) WPL No. 235 of 2025 1 - Satish Kumar Shandilya S/o Mohabu Mohan Singh Shandilya Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Pandrabhantha, P.O. Kura District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) 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 Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPL No. 237 of 2025 1 - Abdul Sharif Khan S/o Abdul Rashid Khan Aged About 51 Years R/o Usha Kiran Parisar, Sonkar Para Bhanthagaon, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) 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 Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.04.25 11:42:45 +0530 2 WPL No. 236 of 2025 1 - Saroj Pradhan S/o Purushottam Pradhan Aged About 40 Years R/o H. No. 944/14, Rajani Fancy Bhagat Singh Chowk, Tikrapara, District- Raipur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) 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(s) WPL No. 234 of 2025 1 - Narendra Bangale S/o Madhukar Bangale Aged About 58 Years R/o B-20, Housing Board Colony, Near Kota Water Tank, District- Raipur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) 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(s) WPL No. 243 of 2025 1 - Dhananjay Kumar Pandey S/o Rameshwar Pandey Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Vivekanandnagar Banbarad, District Durg C.G. ---Petitioner(s) 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(s) WPL No. 244 of 2025 1 - Virendra Kumar Sharma S/o Rambishal Sharma Aged About 57 Years R/o Shanti Vihar Colony, Dagania Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) 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(s) 3 WPL No. 188 of 2025 1 - Purnchandra Rath S/o Late Shri S. N. Rath Aged About 55 Years R/o B- 6 Sales Tax Colony, Khamardih, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, ( C.G. ). ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Nai Dunia, 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(s) WPL No. 34 of 2026 1 - Praful Kumar Masih S/o Premkumar Masih Aged About 40 Years R/o H. No. 574, Aadarsh Chowk, In Front Of My Dental Clinic, Rajatalab District- Raipur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) 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(s) WPL No. 35 of 2026 1 - Love Kumar Sahu S/o Ramadhaar Sahu Aged About 51 Years R/o H. No. 507, Ward No. 10, Sai Temple, Moti Chowk, Shankarnagar, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Naidunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Ltd., 3rd Floor, Krishna Glory Complex, Sai Nagar Hotel, Behind Hotel Babylon Inn, Jail Road, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPL No. 215 of 2025 1 - Shiv Kumar Sahu S/o Babu Ram Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o B-6, Shiv Nagar, Chauhan Kirana Shop Near Shitala Mandir, Rama Tailor, New Changorabhanta, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) 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 4 (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPL No. 216 of 2025 1 - Ramesh Kumar Dewangan S/o Jhagroo Dewangan Aged About 48 Years R/o Chandrashekhar Nagar, Besides Montu Kirana Stores, Lakhenagar, District Raipur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) 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(s) WPL No. 217 of 2025 1 - Kunal Dutt Mishra S/o Dilip Kumar Dutt Mishra Aged About 40 Years R/o Near Bais Paani Tanki, Mahadev Ghat To Bhanthagaon Road, District- Raipur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) 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(s) WPL No. 218 of 2025 1 - Mukesh Kumar Verma S/o Gajadhar Singh Verma Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No. 3, Akhra Bhantapara, P.O. And Tehsil Patan, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Naidunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Ltd., 3rd Floor, Krishna Glory Complex, Sai Nagar Hotel, Behind Hotel Babylon Inn, Jail Road, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPL No. 221 of 2025 1 - Ghanshyam Gupta S/o Late Narayan Prasad Gupta Aged About 69 Years R/o 38/203, Behind Hanuman Temple, Tatyapara, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 5 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(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Vikas Dubey, Advocate along with Mr. Yash Mishra, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate and Ms. Nidhi Tiwari, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Manay Nath Thakur, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24.04 .2026 1. 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 :- 6 " आवेदकगण क श्रमजीवे पत्रकर तथा अन्य समचार- पत्र कमचार (सवे-शत) और प्रकण उपबं!ध अधिधनि%यम 1955 क अ!तगत मजीठि'य वेजी बंर्ड क अ%)स!शआ* क अ%)सर निकत% रशिश प% क पत्रत है-?” 2. 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. 3. Mr. Vikas Dubey, 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. 4. On the other hand, learned Advocates 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. Dubey 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. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents 7 placed on record. 6. Perusal of the orders passed by the competent Government under Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act would make it clear that the learned Labour Court was directed to decide the amount payable to the petitinoers 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of 8 the case. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant