Case Title: RABEENDRA KUMAR DHAKAD V. HT MEDIA LTD & ANR.
Case No: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION TO APPEAL © NO(S). 394/2024
Decided on: 8 JANUARY, 2024
CORAM: JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH, JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
Facts of the Case
The case involves a Special Leave Petition filed in the Supreme Court, challenging the order of the Delhi High Court that stayed proceedings related to an industrial dispute between HT Media Private Limited and Rabeendra Kumar Dhakad. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication based on an order of reference issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi in 2017. Rabeendra Kumar Dhakad, the petitioner, sought revised wages according to the Majithia Wage Board Recommendations. These recommendations, applicable to working journalists and non-journalist newspaper employees, were accepted and notified by the government in November 2011. The Labour Court was tasked with resolving the industrial dispute, with the Deputy Labour Commissioner referring the matter under Section 17(2) of the Working Journalist and Other Newspaper Employees (Condition of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955 (WJ Act). HT Media, the respondent, contested the reference, arguing that Dhakad had already retired, belatedly raising the dispute after two years in 2016. Additionally, they claimed that Dhakad, working as a manager, did not fall under the definition of a workman or an employee covered by the WJ Act. The media company also challenged the reference order, alleging that the Deputy Labour Commissioner exceeded their powers under Section 17(2) of the WJ Act without proper delegation. In response to HT Media’s contentions, the Delhi High Court granted a stay on the proceedings before the Labour Court, pending further hearings. The Supreme Court has now issued a notice in the Special Leave Petition, questioning the High Court’s order, and the case is set to be listed for the next hearing on February 23, 2023.
Legal Provisions
The legal provisions involved in this case primarily revolve around the Working Journalist and Other Newspaper Employees (Condition of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955 (WJ Act). The case pertains to an industrial dispute between HT Media Private Limited and Rabeendra Kumar Dhakad, who sought revised wages in accordance with the Majithia Wage Board Recommendations. The origin of the dispute lies in the order of reference dated 14.08.2017 by the Government of NCT of Delhi, through the Deputy Labour Commissioner, invoking the powers under Section 17(2) of the WJ Act, to refer the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. Section 17(2) of the WJ Act empowers the appropriate government or any officer authorized by it to refer an industrial dispute concerning the conditions of service or the retrenchment of working journalists to a Labour Court for adjudication. In this case, the Deputy Labour Commissioner, New Delhi District, exercised this authority to refer the dispute between the petitioner and HT Media to the Labour Court. The media company, HT Media, challenged the reference order in the Delhi High Court on various grounds, including the contention that Dhakad had already attained superannuation, was not a workman covered under the WJ Act, and that the reference was made without proper authority. Additionally, the company argued that Dhakad was employed mainly in a managerial and administrative capacity, which, according to the definition in the WJ Act, does not fall within the scope of a non-journalist covered by the Act. The High Court, in response, stayed the proceedings before the Labour Court pending further hearings, highlighting the complexity of issues surrounding jurisdiction, the nature of employment, and compliance with statutory provisions under the WJ Act.
Issues
The legal issues in this case revolve around the challenge to the order of reference dated 14.08.2017, in which the Government of NCT of Delhi, through the Deputy Labour Commissioner, referred the industrial dispute between the petitioner, Rabeendra Kumar Dhakad, and HT Media Private Limited to the Labour Court for adjudication. The petitioner sought revised wages based on the Majithia Wage Board Recommendations, which had been accepted and notified by the government on 11th November 2011. HT Media, the respondent, contested the reference on multiple grounds, including the claim that Dhakad had retired, raised the industrial dispute belatedly, and was not covered under the provisions of the Working Journalist and Other Newspaper Employees (Condition of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955 (WJ Act) as he was working in a managerial capacity. Additionally, the company challenged the reference order, asserting that the Deputy Labour Commissioner did not have the delegated authority to exercise powers under Section 17(2) of the WJ Act. The High Court granted a stay on the proceedings before the Labour Court pending further hearings, leading to the Supreme Court issuing a notice to reconsider the High Court’s decision. The case involves the interpretation and application of provisions under the WJ Act, including the eligibility criteria for raising an industrial dispute and the authority of the Deputy Labour Commissioner to make such references.
Courts Analysis and Decision
In the Special Leave Petition challenging the Delhi High Court’s order, the Supreme Court, on January 8, issued a notice to consider the stay on proceedings related to an industrial dispute between HT Media Private Limited and Rabeendra Kumar Dhakad. The origin of the dispute lies in the government’s reference of the matter to the Labour Court, following the petitioner’s request for revised wages based on the Majithia Wage Board Recommendations. The media company contested the reference, asserting that Dhakad had retired and was not a workman covered under the Working Journalist and Other Newspaper Employees Act. Additionally, they argued that the Deputy Labour Commissioner lacked the authority to make the reference under Section 17(2) of the WJ Act. The Supreme Court, while staying the Delhi High Court’s order, emphasized that the Labour Court could proceed with the reference and makes a decision in accordance with the law. The case is set to be listed again on February 23, 2023. The legal dispute centers on the interpretation of the WJ Act, the eligibility of the petitioner as a workman, and the authority of the Deputy Labour Commissioner to make the reference. The eventual judgment is awaited to provide clarity on these issues and guide the adjudication of industrial disputes under similar circumstances.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Komal Goswami
Click here to read the Judgement
