Section 17(2) Of Working Journalist Act Is Discretionary; Not A Compulsive Corollary To Section 17(1): Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has observed that Section 17(2) of the Working Journalist & Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 requires verification of whether a dispute truly exists and the circumstances under which it arose, making it discretionary and not a compulsory follow-up to Section 17(1).

In that context, the Bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee and Justice Rekha Palli observed that, "the appellant had not raised any dispute for reference under Section 17(2) of the WJ Act. As a result, there was thus no feasible occasion for initiating the process therefor. Furthermore, and in any event, the proceedings under Section 17(2) of the WJ Act is a matter of discretion left to the choice of the concerned State Government as it ‘may’ refer the dispute, if any and it is certainly not as a matter of right to refer it. Meaning thereby, the dispute, if any, is to be first verified, i.e. if there is actually a dispute, under what circumstances it can be said that a dispute has actually arisen and when the said dispute is said to have arisen. Thus, it can be safely inferred that Section 17(2) of the WJ Act is not a necessary and/ or compulsive corollary to Section 17(1) thereof."

The Statesman Ltd. sought an exemption from implementing the Majithia Wage Board Award, which required revised wages for journalists and non-journalist newspaper employees, due to claimed financial losses. They argued that they should be exempt from these payments because of "heavy cash losses" in the preceding three financial years. Their plea was initially dismissed by a Single Judge, and a review petition was also rejected, leading to the appeals.

The Court observed that, "it is abundantly clear that the appellant failed to raise any dispute qua the amount whereby the proceedings under Section 17(2) of the WJ Act were to be initiated before the respondent no.2. Even otherwise, had the appellant raised the said dispute it was still within the discretion of the concerned State Government to refer the same to a Labour Court under Section 17(2) of the WJ Act thereof. As such, the alleged non-reference of the dispute by the concerned State Government to a Labour Court for the proceedings under Section 17(2) of the WJ Act cannot in any event, much less, under the existing circumstances, come to the aid of the appellant."

In light of the same, the Court observed that since the appellant missed the bus, he is surely estopped from pleading anything contrary, and trying to rake up alternative pleas at a belated stage. In furtherance of the same, the Court also noted that, "the appellant cannot be permitted to take alternate plea/s which were never ever taken previously or were never part of its pleadings before the respondent no.2 and that too after having suffered before the respondent no.2 and twice before the learned Single Judge by introducing jugglery of words much less at the appellate stage. The appellant, in our considered view, cannot be permitted to build up a new case."

The Cort also found no losses, or any material to indicate that the appellants suffered 'huge financial losses'.

Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed.

Cause Title: The Statesman Ltd. vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment