LexM/S BENNET COLEMAN & CO. LTD versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 372
M/S BENNET COLEMAN & CO. LTD
v.
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
(Criminal Appeal No. 269 of 2015)
FEBRUARY 10, 2015.
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: s.25U rlw s.29 - Non-
implementation of recommendation of Wage Board
constituted under Working Journalists Act - Prosecution
u/s.25U of the l.D. Act - Maintainability of - Held: The
recommendations of the Wage Board is neither an award
D nor a settlement in terms of the provisions under the I. D.
Act - It is not passed by the Labour Court or Industrial
Tribunal or National Industrial Tribunal - It is neither an
Arbitration Award in terms of s.10A of the l.D. Act nor a
E settlement in terms of s. 2(b) of the l.D. Act- It is not an
agreement between the parties - Its enforceability, being
a recommendation, depends on the order passed by the
Central Government - Prosecution under the provisions
of ID Act is thus not maintainable as there is no award
F or settlement or agreement which has been violated so
as to make them liable for prosecution -
Working
Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Condition
of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 -
s.3.
G
H
Allowing the appeals and dismissing the
contempt petitions, the Court
HELD: Section 2(b) of the l.D. Act defines 'award'.
372
BENNET COLEMAN & CO. LTD v. STATE OF BIHAR 373
The provision shows that it must be the determination A
of an industrial dispute or any question relating thereto
by any Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal or National
Industrial Tribunal. It could also be an arbitration award
under Section 1 OA. Being a dispute on wages, there
cannot be any dispute that the issue under reference B
is an industrial dispute. The Wage Board, constituted
under Section 9 read with Section 13C of the Working
Journalists Act, submitted their recommendation in
terms of Section 10 of the Working Journalists Act.
Section 1 of their recommendation, is titled as C
Manisana {Wage Board) Award. Even according to the
Wage Board, though it is titled as Award, they are only
recommendations. The same can only be so under the
Working Journalists Act in terms of Section 10 of the 0
Act. Thus, in legal parlance, the Wage Board
recommendations made under Section 10 of the
Working Journalists Act is not an award under Section
2{b) of the 1.0. Act. Once the recommendations under
Section 10 are received, it is for the Central Government E
to issue appropriate orders so as to enforce the same
in terms of Section 12 of the Working Journalists Act.
If the said order is not complied with, the employees
may take recourse to Section 17 of the Working
Journalists Act. Section 11(1) of Working Journalist F
Act provides for exercise of the powers of the Tribunal
by the Wage Board in the process of making its
recommendations in regulating its procedure. The
provision does not make Wage Board a Tribunal. The
Tribunal under the 1.0. Act does not make G
recommendations, it passes award; whereas the Wage
Board under the Working Journalists Act is competent
only to make a recommendation in terms of Section 10
and after the notification of the recommendations by
H
374
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 2 S.C.R.
A the Centra.IGovemmentifthereisanydispute regarding any
amount due under the notification, a dispute is raised
under Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists Act and
thereafter an award is passed by the Labour Court. [Para
9, 10, 12 to 16, 21) [376-H;377-A-B,E-G;378- F-G;380- B-
B C;381- E;386- B-D]
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 269 of2015.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11. 08.2010 of the High
C Court of Patna at Patna in Misc. Cr. Case No. 12876 of 2004.
D
WITH
Crl. A. Nos. 270, 271 & 272 of 2015
Conmt. Pet. (C) Nos. 171 & 172 of2012
P. P. Rao, Bhaskar P. Gupta, K. Datta, Ashish Verma, Rahul
Malhotra, Abhay Kumar, Manish Srivastava, Shahid Anwar,
Deepak Goel for the Appellant.
Sikumar, Deepak Goel, Gopal Singh, Rituraj Choudhary,
E Rashmi Srivastava, R. Gopalakrishnan forthe Respondents.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KURIAN JOSEPH, J.
CRIMINALAPPEAL N0.269 OF 2015
(ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL.) N0.10134/2010)
1. Leave granted.
2. Whether the appellant is liable to be prosecuted under
G Section 25U read with Section 29 and under Serial No.13 of the
Fifth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the
1.0. Act') is the question arising for consideratiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.