LexEXPRESS NEWSPAPERS (PRIVATE) LTD., AND ANOTHER versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
l!!
SUPREME <'Ol'RT REPOHTS
[ l!l59]
J<~XPRESi:l NEWSPAPERH (PR I VA.TE) LTIJ.,
AND ANOTHEH
v.
THE U:N"IOX OF INDIA AND OTHEH~
(and connected petitions and appeals)
(HHAOWATI, B. P. SINHA, JAFF.H blAM, ,J. L. KAPU\t
and <iAJENDHAGAUKAH, .J.J .)
Working .foumalists-Rcgulaliou of Co11dilio11.1 of Service-
Conslitulional 1•atidit_y of rnadnicnt---Drci>1011 of l!'agr Board Ji.tin~
rates of wages- Validit_y-11" urking J 01m1a/1sts (Condit ion.< of Seri•ice)
and Miscdlaneous Provisio11s Art, 1955 (45 of i955). ss. 3(2), ./, 5(1)
(a)(iii), 9(1). II, 12, I], 2o(d)(2)-Conslitution of India, .1rt<. r9(1)
(a), r9(1)(g), 14, J2.
These petitions on behalf of certain newspaper establishments
challenged the constitutional validity of the Working .Journalists
(Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955,
and the legality of the decision of the \\'age Boarrl, constituted
thereunder, purporting to act under s. 9 of the Act. The impugned
Act, which was passed in order to implement the rccomm<"nclations
of the Press Commission and hacl for its object !11<' n·gulation of
the conditions of service of working journalists and other persons
employed in newspaper establishments, provided, inter aha, for
the payment of gratuity to a working journalist who had been
in continuous scr\'ice, whether before or after the commencement
of the Act, for not less than three years, even when he voluntarily
resigned from service, regulated hours of work and leave, provided
for the payment of retrenchment compensation with retrospective
effect in certain cases and bys. 9(1) laid dow11 the principles that
the Wage Board was to follow in fixing the rates of wages of
working journalists.
Under those principles the Wage Board was
to have re~ard to the cost of Jiving, the pre,·alent rates of wages
for comparable employments, the cirrnmstances relating to the
newspaper industry in different regions of the country and to any
other circumstances which it might consirkr rel<"vant.
The peti-
tioners
contended on various grounds that
the prO\'i!-iions
of the impugned Act violated their fundamental riglits under
.\rts. 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 14 and 32 of the Constitution and that the
decision of the \\'age Board fixing the rates and scales of wages,
which was arrived at \\'ithout any consideration whatsoever as to
the capacity of the newspaper industry to pay the same, imposed
too heavy a financial burden on the industry and spelled its total
ruin, was vitiated by a wrong approach ,and non-application of
the proper criteria and t(ansgrcssed the principles of natural
justice and was, therefore, Illegal an<l void :
Held, that the constitutional validity of the impugned Act,
with the sole exception of s. :;(1)(a)(iii) of the Act winch infringed
S.t'.R.
fl_;"~EME COURT REPORTS
Art. r9(1)(g) of the Constitution, was beyond question and as that
section, severable as it was from the rest of the Act, must alone
be declared ultra vires.
Section 9(1) of the Act, properly construed, made it incum·
bent on the Wage Board to take into consideration the capacity
Express News·
papers {Private)
Ltd, & Another
of the newspaper industry to pay the rates and scales' of wages
, . v.
.
recommended by it and as there was nothing to indicate that it Tloe c "'°" •!India
,had done so, its decision was void and inoperative.
.s. Gt/sers
Held, further, that there could be no doubt, in view of the
interpretation put upon Art. l9(1)(a) of the Constitution by this
Court, that liberty of the press was an essential part of the free-
dom of speech and expression guaranteed by that Article and the
press had thereunder the right of free propagation and free circu-
lation without any previous restraint on publication.
Ramesh Thaper v. The Slate of Madras, [1950] S.C.R. 594 and
Brij Bhushan v. The State of Dtlhi, [1950] S.C.R. 605, referred to.
It was legitimate and proper to refer in this connection to
the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of
America, since Art. l9(1)(a) of the Constitution was based on
Amendment l of the Constitution of that country, and the rules
that could be deduced therefrom made it c!P.ar that although free-
dom of the press included freedom from restriction in resprct of
employment in the editorial staff, the press was not immune from
ordinary forms of taxation or from the application of general
laws relating to industrial relations or laws regulating payment
of wages. Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.