Written by Umesh
Sharma, Advocate, Supreme Court on June 21, 2017
Analysing the
order passed by the Supreme Court in the contempt petitions filed by employees
against the newspaper establishments, it is evident that the core issue of
wilful contempt, deliberate non-compliance of the directions issued by Supreme
Court on 7/2/2014 and subsequent acts done by the newspaper establishments in
discouraging the employees from claiming money to wage board benefits has
escaped the attention of Supreme Court. Going into the background of the
matter, it is evident that all the newspaper establishments have challenged the
Majithai Wage Board award as notified by the Central government directly before
the Supreme Court in a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India. Supreme Court heard the aforesaid writ petitions at length and finally
wide its orders of 7/2/2014, dismissed all the writ petition thereby upholding
the notification of the Central Government. The Supreme Court further issued
time-bound directions for implementation of the said award and payment of the
benefits due under the aforesaid award to the employees within one year in four
equal quarterly installments. Supreme Court further issued directions for
payment of the benefits of midget wage board with effect from first of April
2014. The operative part of the historic order is as under:
71) Accordingly,
we hold that the recommendations of the 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.
72) Consequently,
all the writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.
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
installments within a period of one year from today and continue to pay the
revised wages from April 2014 onwards.
74) In view of the
disposal of the writ petitions, the contempt petition is closed.
It was for the
first time that Supreme Court has upheld the legality of any Wage Board Award
and issued specific directions for the implementation of the same. The legal
effect of the same is that the award merged in the orders of the court. As was
expected, none of the newspaper establishments complied with the aforesaid
directions issued by Supreme Court and resorted to dishonest and myriad devices
to overreach the specific time-bound directions issued by the Supreme Court.
Not all but a handful of newspaper employees on the basis of the orders of
Supreme Court demanded their benefits under the aforesaid order. As expected,
the newspaper establishments refused to release the benefits despite very clear
and specific directions of Supreme Court and more clear notification issued by
the Central government which categorizes the newspaper establishment on the
basis of its gross revenue and places the employees on the basis of their
duties and posts in particular category. Most of the employees demanding the
aforesaid benefits were either denied the said benefits or harassed, victimized
for their such demands. Instances of large-scale transfer, termination,
discharge took place in various newspapers establishments for obvious reasons
of discouraging the employees from claiming their rights under the wage board
award.
Since the wage
board award was upheld by the Supreme Court and specific directions were issued
by the Supreme Court for implementation of the wage board award, the
non-compliance of the aforesaid orders and non-implementation of the award
clearly amounted to contempt of the orders of Supreme Court dated 7/2/2014 in
Writ Petition No. ( C) 246 of 2011. A large number of employees, unions,
representative of employees approached the honorable Supreme Court against the
employers claiming that the employers have committed contempt of court by not
implementing the orders of the court and by not granting the benefits accrued
to them under the wage board award. In total around 82 such petitions involving
thousands of employees were filed and taken on board for hearing by the Supreme
Court. The hearing in such matters commenced and the Supreme Court passed
various interlocutory orders seeking compliance or non-compliance of the
orders. As expected, most of the newspaper establishments resorted to twisting
of facts, misrepresentations and raising frivolous legal objections before the
court and the matter drifted from the core issue of deliberate, willful and
intentional non-compliance of the orders of Honorable Supreme Court to some
legal issues such as payment of VDA, entitlement of contractual employees,
extraction of signatures on clause 20 (j) of the Majithia Wage Board Award
besides several other related issues. Since these issues were mainly raised on
behalf of the employees, the employers got the golden opportunity to create
controversy on the understanding of the wage board and proper implementation
thereby creating an alibi of dispute and non-entitlement of the employees
besides various other fake issues of serious losses, incapacity to pay the wage
board recommendations etc. With the advancement of arguments on these issues
the employees were very happy about arguments by their counsels on these issues
and became very hopeful that Supreme Court is going to hold all these issues in
their favor. The emphasis also drifted away from the main and core issue of
deliberate non-implementation of the orders on the fancy arguments presented by
some of the counsels on behalf of the employees. The courts have limited powers
under contempt of court jurisdiction, the raising of such unrelated issues was
a strategic mistake on the part of the counsels for employees which opportunity
was grabbed by the team of lawyers deputed by the newspaper establishments to
defend themselves.
At one stage of
the matter, the judges were very aggressive and particular to get their orders
implemented however in the absence of any specified machinery and due to the
raising of unrelated issues, the courts drifted away from the intention of
seeking the compliance of the orders through labor authorities. Earlier labor
commissioners, as well as the Chief Secretaries of the respective states, were
directed to file reports with regard to the implementation of the orders. After
some time the said process was found to be ineffective by the Supreme Court
hence dropped. The main reason for dropping the said procedure is the raising
of various legal issues from the side of the employees which suited the
teleological concept of justice and the judges also got drifted with the same.
It is a matter of record that in some of the reports submitted by the labor
authorities before Supreme Court, it was reflected on the records that some of
the establishments have not implemented the aforesaid orders of Supreme Court.
It was a clear case of contempt however the Supreme Court lost sight of the
aforesaid facts once detailed arguments on several legal issues were raised on
behalf of the employees.
After prolonged
hearings, the Supreme Court finally reserved the matters on 3rd of May 2017 for
orders and finally pronounced the same on 19th of June 2017. The court wide its
orders held that the employers are not guilty of deliberate contempt. The court
however delved upon the various issues as raised on behalf of the employees and
recorded positive findings on the same. The court upheld that the signatures on
any declaration accepting the pay scales benefits lower than the multitier wage
board are not binding on the employees and will have no legal effect. The court
also held that the contractual employees have not been separately categorized
under the Majithia Wage Board Award hence there is nothing on record to show
that they are not entitled to the benefits of midget wage board. The court also
recorded of the finding of grant of VDA to the contractual employees. The court
mainly discussed the provisions of the Working Journalists Act, 1955 and upheld
that various provisions of the aforesaid act are enough protection for the
rights of the employees. The court emphasized that the entire mechanism as
provided under the aforesaid Act can be invoked by the employees for claiming
their benefits. While discussing the provisions of section 17 of the aforesaid
Act, the court has observed that the said section takes care of the claims of
the employees. It is however painful that court has not made any qualifying
determination with regard to the machinery provided under section 17 (1) of the
said Act and section 17 (2) of the said Act because both these remedies are
very distinct from each other. A plain and simple reading of the provisions of
section 17 (1) of the said Act would say that the employee has a right to claim
its due under the act before the labor authorities who would recover the same
by issuing a recovery certificate. The impact of the aforesaid provision is
wide, as it gives sweeping powers to the labor Commissioner to recover the dues
of the employees. A further construction of the aforesaid section would clarify
that section 17 one of the Act specifically empowers the labor Commissioner to
issue a recovery certificate for the dues of the employees. As the dues under
the Majithia Wage Board Award are statutory dues based on the classification of
the newspaper establishment and classification of the employee based upon the
nature of his duties, to my understanding, the same can be recovered reliably
by issuance of a recovery certificate by the labour authorities despite any
dispute being raised by the newspaper establishment because any such dispute
raised by the newspaper establishment in this regard is liable to be treated as
a sham or fake dispute as the claim of the employees based upon the statutory
wage board which was intimately upheld by the Supreme Court. Having ignored a
discussion on this crucial provision and non-issuance of any specific direction
by the Supreme Court, the field is open for the employers to create a dispute
in every claim thereby making the aforesaid provision ineffective. It is
worthwhile to mention that during the last three years, several recovery
certificates have been issued by the labor commissioners on the basis of the
claims filed by the employees.
So far as section
17 (2) of the Act is concerned, the same contemplates adjudication of the claim
of the employee by the labor court. The said machinery is the most effective
mechanism for determining the dues of the employees however given the prolonged
period of adjudication and complexities of the adjudication process, ultimately
the same proves to be ineffective and the employees remains at the receiving
and by filing such claims. Another painful aspect of this matter is that
Pandora of litigation by the resourceful employers is launched in the process
of adjudication by the labor court and even after the final adjudication, the
matter drags before the High Courts, then to the Supreme Court on various Perry
Farrell issues. The observations made by the Supreme Court in its orders dated
19th of June 2017 regarding the availability of the machinery for enforcement
of the orders under section 17 two of the said aActare nothing but an attempted
to wash off its hands despite clear and recorded violation done by some of the
establishments in non-implementing and ignoring the orders of Supreme Court.
On general
evaluation of the aforesaid judgement dated 19th of June 2017 by the Supreme
Court it also shows the ineffectiveness and limitations of the Indian legal
system in balancing the equities between the haves and the have-nots. The
Supreme Court has written a very positive judgement but it only reaffirms and
reiterates the various provisions available to the employees and painfully
drifts away from the core issue of deliberate, intentional nonimplementation of
the wage board award and the directions issued by the Supreme Court on seventh
of February 2014. The core issue of contempt being pushed in the background,
the discussion as done by the Supreme Court remains only an academic exercise
which does not grant any relief to the employees of the newspaper
establishments.
Coming to the
point of implementation of the award of Majithia Wage Baord and the directions
of the Supreme Court issued on 7/2/2014, the machinery as described under
section 17 (1) and 17 (2) of the working journalists act is the only remedy now
available to the employees. The issue of contempt therefore can be held to have
been decided against the employees as the Supreme Court has specifically
observed that there is no wilful violation of the order hence there is no
contempt committed by the employers. Now the employees have the remedy to
invoke the aforesaid provisions of section 17 (1) as well as 17 (2) as the case
may be. This needs to be done in very planned and united manner by the employees.
A simple reading of section 17 (1) of the said act would show that even the
union or any person authorised on behalf of the employee can file an
application before the labour authorities for recovery of the dues of the
employees. A construction of this provision would be that any union can file
the claim application on behalf of employees of the establishment and ask the
labour authorities to issue a recovery certificate against their dues. The
process for recovery of the said dues or for filing of such applications as
suggested by be earlier is that the employee would prepare a chart of all its
dues on the basis of its entitlement under the Majithia Wage Board Award. The
said chart needs to be very specific showing various columns of the receipts
made by the employees and the dues accruing under the Award and the balance
dues to be recovered under the recovery certificate. The same needs to be
prepared meticulously giving the entire details thereby leaving no scope for
any dispute on the such amount. The application under section 17 (1) of the
Working Journalists Act can be filed before the labour authorities and followed
by the unions if the employees are not in a position to make the said
application. The employees themselves can approach the High Court for giving a
time bound direction for disposal of their applications by the labour
authorities. In the event of the application is being referred by the labour
authorities to the labour court for adjudication under the industrial disputes
machinery, the entire process is liable to be delayed inordinately however in
the absence of any other specific remedy, the same is the only remedy available
to the employees now. All the unions, leaders need to formulate a clear
strategy in this regard.
So far as the dispute
of fitment and gross revenue of r newspaper establishments is concerned, no
dispute on the same can be upheld before the labour court as the Majithia Wage
Board Award has specifically defined about the nature of duties and the fitment
of a particular employee, the claimant employee can very well produce evidence
of his duties wide various records, emails, office orders etc and claim the
benefits of a particular post. Any dispute regarding the fitment of the
newspaper establishment in a particular category based on its revenue will not
stand as the declaration done by the said newspaper establishments before the
Registrar of newspapers, income tax authorities, DAVP and other statutory
authorities will disclose the gross revenue receipts of the said newspaper
establishment. The employees or the union needs to proceed very careful in this
matter by preparing a clear draft of the claim application supported by
documents in evidence and someone all the documents in this regard before the
labour authorities.
#MajithiaWageBoardsSalary,
MajithiaWageBoardsSalary, Majithia Wage Boards Salary
Latest Judgement delivered by Honorable Supreme Court on 1th June is a parallel or equivalent to the judgement delivered by Honorable Supreme Court on 7/2/2014.
ReplyDeleteSC found that Contempt not done. Means more than 3 years gone in air without getting anything, except twice similar judgement.
Now Labour Court will take some years time for interpretation of Notification of Govt dated 11-11-11 and Judgement of SC dated 7-2-14 and dated 19-06-2017.
What will be the uniformity of interpretation by side of employees.
So go with carefully and thoroughly studied of MWB.
SATYA MEV JAYATE !!!