LexM/S. KASTURI AND SONS (PRIVATE) LTD. versus SHRI N. SALIVATEESWARAN AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.i. THE SUPREME COURT REPORTS ------------ ----- ---·---- M/8. KASTURI AND SONS (PRIVATE) LTD. v. SHRI N. SAL1VATEE8WARAN AND ANOTHER (BHAGWATI, B. P. SINHA, JAFER IMAM, J. L. KAPUR and GAJENDRAGADKAR JJ.) Workfog journalist-Claim against employer for recovery of dues-Referrncc by State Got•emment to specified aut/1ority-Jf a11t/1oril)' also empowered to determine amount duc-Jl'orking ]ouma- lists (Conditio•n of Service) and Misceltaneo11s Prot·isions Act, 1955 (45 of z955): s. z7. The respandent No. l was a journalist supplying news to the petitioner's newspaper on payment of a fixed monthly honorarium. Contrary to the petitioner's instructions the respondent No. l left India and thereupan the petitioner terminated the arrangement. Upan his retur~ to ~ndia the respondent No .. r requested the peti .. tioner to reconsider its decision but the petitioner declmed to do so. The respandent No. x applied to the State Government under s. 17 of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Sen·ice) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 claiming a large sum of money from the petitioner. The State Government nominated respon- dent No. 2 as the authority under s. 17 of the Act and referred the claim to him. The petitioner disputed the whole claim and contended that the respondent No. 2 had no jurisdiction to adjudi- cate upan the merits of the disputed claim: Held, that the authority specified under s. 17 of the Act had no jurisdiction to determine the amount due as the section merely provided !or a procedure to recovc,r an amount from the etnployer which had previously been <letennmeJ by a competent authority or court. II the legislature ha<l intended that the enquiry under s. 17 should include the examination of the merits of the claim and a decision thereon, it would have made appropriate provisions conferring upan the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively hold· ing such an enquiry; but no such powers ha<\ been conferred. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition Xo. 240 of 1036. Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of Ji'undamental Rightti. R. Ratnatnurthi Aiyar and B. K. B. Kaidu, for the petitioners. Purshotta·m Tricumdas, P. Ran_U181l'amy, Adrocate, Mwrch 19. 2 SUPREME <'OL'H,T HEl'OHTS (1959] i95s Bombay High Court, with special prm1is8ion and J. N. -- Shroff, for the respondent No. 1. M/s. I<ast11ri aiid .. . sens (Private) Ltd, Y. K urruir, for the mterveners. v, C. K. Daphtanf, Solicitor-Gmeml of India and Shri N, Sulivatm- B. Sen, for the Attornev-C:eneral of India (Tu assist waran and Another th C ) • , e ourt . 1958. March 19. The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by Gajendragadkar J, GAJENDRAOADKAR J.--This is an application under Art. 32 of the Constitution. The petitioner is a private limited company having its registered office at Nu. 201, Mount Road, Madras. The company is thr proprietor of a daily newspaper called "The Hindu., which is published at Madras and has a large circu- lation in India and abroad. The shareholders of the C'Ompany are all citizens of India. The first respon- dent, Shri N. Salivateeswaran, is a journalist of Bom- bay and he has been supplying news to various news- papers and journals one of which was the Hindu. The supply of news by the first respondent tu the Hindu was under an agreement under which he was being paid a fixed monthly honorarium. Contrary to the advice and instructions of the petitioner, the first respondent left India for Zurich on May l, 1956. The petitioner thereupon relieved him of his duties and terminated with effect from March l, 1956, the arrangement under which he was supplying news to the Hindu. He returned to India in July 1956, and requested the petitioner to reconsider its decision; but the petitioner did not think that any case for reconsideration had been made out. Thereupon the first respondent made an application to the Labour Minister of the State of Bombay under s. l 7 of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Misrellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (Act 45 of 1955), hereinafter referred to as the act. On receiving this application the State of Bombay nominated Shri M. R. Meher, I. C. S. (Retired), second respondent, as the authority under s. 17 of the act for the purpose of enquiry into the first respondent's application and requested him to examine the claim ma
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.