Despite
highfalutin and lofty words, the judgement of the Supreme Court in the bunch of
Contempt Petitions in the Majithia case is ‘full of noise and fury signifying
nothing’. Let us first know that how the ‘Majithia Wage Board’ was different
from earlier Wage Boards. It was to some extent akin to the Indian Express case
of 1958, when the vires of the ‘Working Journalists Act’ and the
recommendations of the concomitant Wage Committee were challenged. The
five-judge bench of the Supreme Court although upheld the newly enacted Working
Journalist Act yet quashed the reports of the Committee on the ground that it
had not taken into consideration the ‘paying capacity’ of the owners.
In Majithia case,
the owners impugned the Working Journalists Act and also the recommendations of
the Wage Boards. However, this time the top court not only upheld the validity
of WJ Act but also all the recommendations of the MWB except the minor change
in the date of the implementation. It was, undoubtedly, a big shot in the arms
of employees but when no tangible change came in the wages of the employees of
most of the newspapers, they knocked at the door of the Supreme Court reminding
it that the owners have no respect for its verdict. Of course, there have many
newspapers, who implemented the recommendations, as they perceived to be
correct and the employees remained satisfied with whatever they got.
However,
newspapers like Dainik Jagran, Rajasthan Patrika, Dainik Bhaskar and Hindustan
Times etc. instead of even partially implementing took recourse to
transferring, changing the designations of the employees and forcibly getting
signatures from the employees with a declaration that they were happy with the
wages were being given to them. Can any employee in his/her senses would say
that he/she is fully satisfied with the wages being given and he/she would not
like to get the hike as per the recommendations? If this is not the willful
disobedience then what is it? Did the proprietors give any undertaking to the
Court that hence forth they would hike the wages of the employees and properly
implement the MWB? They did not do anything of the sort. Nevertheless, the
Court concludes that there is no willful disobedience. Is not disappointing?
Wages as
recommended by Wage Boards are similar to minimum wages. The wages prescribed
under Wage Boards are like benchmarks for the contractual employees and that is
the reason that Statute makes it clear that no employees can be paid less than
that. Which is why ,the Hon’ble Court has reproduced Section 16 of the Act that
says: (1) “Provided that where under any
such award, agreement, contract of service or otherwise, a newspaper employee
is entitled to benefits in respect of any matter which are more favourable to
him than those to which he would be entitled under this Act, the newspaper
employee shall continue to be entitled to the more favourable benefits in
respect of that matter, notwithstanding that he receives benefits in respect of
other matters under this Act.
Section 16 (2)
‘’Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to preclude any newspaper
employee from entering into an agreement with an employer for granting him
rights or privileges in respect of any matter which are more favourable to him
than those to which he would be entitled under this Act.”
Needless to say,
that sub-section 1 and 2 of the WJ Act, fully addresses to the concerns of 20 J
and Contractual employees. The proprietors are openly violating these
provisions, which is the integral part of the judgement and yet they have been
allowed to go scot-free. Look, what the Court has said in respect of Variable
Pay,’ insofar as variable pay, contractual employees, and financial capacity is
concerned, it is the case of the contempt petitioners that all the above
matters have been exhaustively dealt with by the Majithia Wage Board. The
recommendations thereof having been accepted by the Central Government, there
is no scope for any further debate or controversy on the said score. The Wage Board recommendations, as approved
and notified, would apply to all categories of employees, including contractual
employees, who would also be entitled to variable pay and computation of all
allowances by inclusion of variable pay. All employers are also obliged to pay
the arrears from the stipulated date unless an establishment has suffered
“heavy cash losses” in the three preceding accounting years preceding the date
of implementation of the Award which is to be distinguished from mere financial
difficulties, as may be projected by an employer.’ It is very baffling that in
what way this observation and repetition of the statutory provisions by the
Hon’ble Court in its judgment is going to help the employees?
It is a cliché to
say that un-implementable law is no law. If the judgments of the courts cannot
bring any relief to the employees on the ground, what is the sanctity of the
judgments? Moreover, hundreds of employees of many newspapers have been thrown
out of the employment, transferred and victimised only because they
demonstrated temerity by asking the implantation of the Award. The statute is
crystal clear, which the Hon’ble Court has reproduced in its judgment yet the
Hon’ble Court has not seen the willful disobedience by the Proprietors. Then
what is it, Your Honours?
Those who see all
hunky-dory and good things in the judgement will please tell what is the relief
that has come employees? The employers who did not bother about the judgment of
the Supreme Court, will they not drag it on for years together in the Labour
Courts? Will the employees have the power of sustain to pursue their cases in
the Labour Courts for many long years? Will those employees who go the Labour
Court for the Wage Board benefits be not victimized? There are innumerable
questions which this judgement has thrown up. No time limit has been fixed for
the Labour Commissioners and the Labour Courts to dispose of the claims, does
it not mean that Employers can rejoice over the judgment? That is why, we find
that the judgement has let the employees down.
Parmanand Pandey
Secretary General-IFWJ
#MajithiaWageBoardsSalary,
MajithiaWageBoardsSalary, Majithia Wage Boards Salary
Pandey ji, I request you to move the court for getting a clear-cut and categorical verdict on Dearness Allowance interpretation. Almost all employees are getting 20% lesser DA because of 189 Base formula followed by the management under the pretext of change in implementation date.
ReplyDeletePlease ask the hon supreme court whether there is any scope for interpreting the judgment on the basis of change in implementation date set by the hon SC after the court has categorically said, 'THERE IS NO VALID GROUND FOR INTERFERENCE'. Is not changing DA base to 189 instead of the recommended 167 Base, an 'INTERFERENCE'.
As the calculation of Gratuity had not been included in the Contempt Petition plea, you may please file a case for getting a clarification on calculation by making a plea 'whether Variable Pay should be considered for the calculation of Gratuity' and whether DA should be calculated for the Variable Pay under 167 base formula set by the Majithia Wage Board for the calculation of such Gratuity.
Because of lesser DA employees are getting not only lesser DA (over 20%) but also are getting lesser Gratuity, lesser pension, lesser leave encashment pay, lesser EPF balance, etc.
You may plese quote the Bachawat Wage Board recommendations to drive home change in implementation date should not been an excuse to change the DA formula. Way back in 1990, Hon Justice (late) Bachawat even while setting two implementation dates had set 752 as DA base for both April 1988 (Caterory I to IV) and April 1989 (Cat V to VIII) stating that the Basic Pay recommended in the Wage Board is related to the DA base that prevailed in April 1988.
Thanks and regards,
S. Madhavan
9962158712