Sunday 1 October 2023

Unvarnished Lies of Dainik Jagran in the Supreme Court

 

The Majithia Wage Board was set up in 2008 and finally submitted its report to the Government of India in 2010. The Government notified it for implementation in November 2011. But instead of implementing it the owners of newspapers and news agencies approached the Supreme Court for repealing the Working Journalist Act which envisages the constitution of the Wage Boards by the Central government from time to time. However, the owners got a crushing defeat in the Supreme Court, but they adopted another route to deny the recommended wages to the employees. The irony is that governments have been active partners in their nefarious designs.

There is a section 20 J in the Majithia Wage Board which says that employees can opt out of the Wage Board scales if the existing pay scales are more favourable to them. Taking advantage of this section, the employers forced the employees to opt for the 20 J. Those who refused to fall in line were punished in different ways. This is not only the height of illegality but also of unscrupulousness and unethical behaviour of the newspaper owners. The newspapers and their editors who do not tire of delivering homilies on maintaining good behaviour in the public and private committed the crime of forcing the employees to sign on their prepared proforma of accepting the 20 J provision. Unfortunately, this tactic was adopted by the so-called big newspapers like Dainik Jagran and Dainik Bhaskar among others.  The governments should have taken note of this notorious practice of the newspaper tycoons, but they left the newspaper employees to fend for themselves. 

The sad part of it is that employees across the country irrespective of any newspaper are deprived of their due wages and arrears. They are running from pillar to post but to no avail. Many newspaper employees have been thrown out of their jobs. Some of them were transferred to insignificant places. Their only fault has been that they demanded the Majithia Wage Board. Pretty good numbers have been contesting their cases in the labour courts. Even the cases decided by the high courts are being appealed in the Supreme Court.

The other day, Dainik Jagran Management fielded top-notch advocates like Mukul Rohatgi and Niraj Kishan Kaul in the Supreme to get its SLP admitted on the ground that they have been paying more than what the Wage Board has recommended. The Hon’ble judges asked them to give the chart of both baskets-one which is being spent and the other what the Wage Board has recommended. The moot question of why the Management is not giving more wages than what has been recommended by the Wage Board is because employees do not want more than the Wage Board suggested pay scales and allowances. Look at the brazenness of Dainik Jagran Management which does not want to pay as per the wage board. If it wants to pay more than the Wage Board has recommended, then why is it contesting the workers' claim from the lower court to the Supreme Court? This speaks of the blatant lie of the Management, and therefore, it must be slapped with a heavy cost for wasting precious judicial time in different courts.

Last but not least, what message these top-notch advocates are sending to the people? They are telling unvarnished lies in the courts for hefty amounts of fees.

Adv. Parmanand Pandey 
(AOR, Supreme Court and General Secretary IFWJ).

2 comments:

  1. Well said sir, Salute to you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. First, the employees were not shown comparative eligible payouts as per majithia wage board recommendations as implemented by the PTI by including Variable Pay for calculation of Dearness Allowance. Apart from that many managements changed the DA base and divisor formula to reduce DA.
    Due to ignorance and fear, thousands of workers opted to move to private pay structure offered by the management. Moreover,
    in order to inflict more fears, the managements terminated many workers who filed cases.
    For example, I was terminated during the pendency of Dearness Allowance dispute referred under Section 17(2) of WJ Act. Management didn't even bother to get prior permission from the labour court as envisaged in Section 33 of ID Act. When I made a complaint under Section 33A, the Principal Labour Court, Chennai, while admitting that the management did not seek prior permission, dismissed my complaint petition by unilaterally presuming closure of entire editorial department even while the dismissal order clearly states 'scaling down of editorial operations'. Supreme Court's Constitution Bench's guidelines made in Jaipur Zila Sahakari were given a go bye and presently I am contesting the case in Madras High Court through appeal. It is very very bad time for print media and media workers, the so-called Covid warriors.

    ReplyDelete