LexAVISHEK RAJA & ORS. versus SANJAY GUPTA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2017] 6 S.C.R. 1028 AVISHEK RAJA & ORS. v. SANJAY GUPTA (Contempt Petition"(Civil) No. 411 of 2014) 01 (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 246of2011) JUNE19,2017 . [RANJAN GOGOi AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.] Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: s.2(b) - Civil Contempt - When not - Employees in newspaper establishments - Majithia Wage Board constituted by Central Government in exercise of its powers u/ss. 9 and l 3C of the 1955 Act - Recommendations of said Wage Board accepted and notified D by Central government - Writ petition before Supreme Court challenging said recommendations as well as notification by Central Government - Writ petitions dismissed vide judgment dated 07.02.2014, thereby approving award of Wage Board - Contempt E F petitions filed alleging non-payment of wages/allowances as per the award of wage board and thus non-implementation/partial implementation of award by newspaper establishments- Held: Part implementation/non-implementation of the Wage Board award by the concerned newspaper establishments is on account of what the said establishments perceived to be the scope and ambit of Wage Board award as approved and notified by the Central Government, the challenge to which was dismissed by Supreme Court by judgment dated 7.2.2014 - Thus, the default alleged took place on account of a wrong understanding of the award as upheld by Supreme Court and the same would not amount to wilful default so as to attract the liability of civil contempt as defined uls. 2(b) - Further, though, the G de/au/( alleged is evident, in absence of any willful or deliberate intention to commit the same, none of the newspaper establishments in the facts of the case are held guilty of commission of contempt - Further, complailits with regard to non-implementation of the Wage Board or otherwise be dealt with in terms of mechanism provided u/ s. 17 ~ The Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees H . 1028 AVISHEK RAJA & ORS. v. SANJAY GUPTA 1029 (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 - A ss. 2(c), 9, 12, 13, 13AA, 13C, 13DD, 16A and 17. Contempt of Court - Standard of proof - Discussed. The Working Journalists and Other Newspaper employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955: Purpose of enactment - Held: To provide the minimum, if not a fair wage, to newspaper employees. s.12 - Wages notified under, by Central Government - Nature B of - The wages notified supersedes all existing contracts governing wages as may be in force - However, the Legislature has made it C clear by way of of s.16 that, notwithstanding the wages as may be fixed and notified, it will always be open to the concerned employee to agree to and accept any benefits. which is more favourable to him than what has been notified uls.12. Doctrines/Principles - Doctrine of Waiver - Applicability of 0 - Wage Board award (Clause 20(j)) gave an option to employees to retain their existing pay scale and not opt for wages as recommended by the Board and notified by Central Government - Undertakings given by the employees (although alleged to be involuntary/given un.der duress) agreeing to be· governed by previous wage structure, the same being less favourable - Plea of contempt petitioners that E such undertaking opting for less favourable benefits than what was recommended by Wage Board is non est in law - Held: The Act is silent on the availability of an option to receive less than what is due to an employee under the Act - Such an option lies in the domain of the doctrine of waiver, an issue that does not arise in the pl't!sent case in view of specific stand of the employees with regard to the involuntary nature of undertakings allegedly furnished by them ...: Such dispute has to be resolved by the fact finding authority u/s.17 of the Act - The Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 - s.17. Constitution of India - Art. 32 - Writ petitions under, seeking interference with transfer/termination - Non-maintainability of - Held: Such writ petitions are relatable to service conditions of the concerned writ petitioners and adjudication of such questions in F G H 1030 A B SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 6 S.C.R. the exercise of high prerogative writ jurisdiction of this. Court u/ Art. 32 of the Constitution, unjustified - Such questions should be left for determination before
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.