SAMARJIT GHOSH versus BENNETT COLEMAN & COMPANY AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 475 · Decided: 29-06-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SAMARJIT GHOSH 
v. 
BENNETI COLEMAN & COMPANY AND ANOTHER 
JUNE 29, 1987 
[R.S. PATHAK, CJ! AND V. KHALID, J.] 
A 
B 
Labour Law: Working Journalists and Other Newspaper 
Employees' (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. 
1955: Sub-ss. ( 1) and (2) of s. 17 read with r. 36 of the Rules framed 
thereunder-Dispute with regard to unpaid dues between an employee 
and his employer-company which has offices at places falling in diffe-
C 
rent States-The State Government competent to make a reference to the 
Labour Court under sub-s. (2) of s. 17. 
The appellant, a working journalist who was appointed on 
/November, 1961 as a Staff Correspondent in the Calcutta Office of the 
respondent-company while working as such at Calcutta, applied on 29 D 
April, 1975 to the Government of West Bengal under sub-s. (1) of s. 17 
of the Working Journalists and Newspaper Employees (Conditions of 
Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 for recovery of the 
unpaid portion of his wage$ relating to the period April 1968 to 
February 1973. While the conciliation proceedings were on, he was 
promoted and transferred to Pone on 16 February, 1976. The Concilia· E 
tion omcer reported the failure of the proceedings before him on 16 
November, 1976 and the Government of West Bengal made a reference 
under sub-s. (2) of s. 17 of the Act to the First Labour Court, West 
Bengal on 23 August, 1977 for the adjudication of the dispute between 
the parties. The preliminary objection raised by the respondent-
company that the Government of West Bengal was not competent to F 
make the reference was rejected by the Labour Court. The respondent-
company's writ petition challenging the order of the Labour Court was 
allowed by a Single Judge whose decision was affirmed in appeal by the 
Division Bench of the High Court. 
Allowing the appeal by special leave and dismissing the writ peti· G 
tion of the respondent-comp11ny, this Court. 
HELD: (i) Sub-s. (l) of s. 17 of the Act requires that an appUcation 
by the newspaper-employee complaining that an amount due to him has 
remained unpaid by the employer should be made to the State Govern-
ment. Which is the State Government to which such application lies b 
H 
475 
-
476 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] 3.S.C.R. 
A 
indicated by r. 36 of the Rules made under the Act and that rule pro-
}-. 
vides that an application under s. 17 of the Act shall be made to the 
Government of the State where the central office or the branch office of 
the newspaper establishment in which the newspaper employee is emp-
loyed is situated. It is the location of the central office or the branch 
office in which the newspaper employee is employed which determines 
B 
which State Government it will be. The rule works in favour of the 
convenience of the newspaper employee. [478C-E] 
--4 
(ii) Sub-s. (2) of s. 17 provides that if any question arises as to the 
amount due under the Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, 
the State Government may refer the question to any Labour Court, 
C 
constituted by It under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any 
corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial 
disputes_in force in the State. If a question arises as to the amount due, 
it is a question which arises on the application made by the newspaper 
employee, and the application having been made before the appropriate 
State Government, it is that State Government which will call for an 
D 
adjudication of the dispute by referring the question to a Labour Court. 
The State Government before whom the application for recovery is 
made is the State Government which will refer the question as to the 
amount due to a Labour Court. [478F-G; 479C-D] 
In this case, the appellant was employed at the Calcutta branch of 
E 
the respondent-company. He made the application to the Labour 
Department of the Government of West Bengal for recovery of the 
unpaid portion of his wages. When the question arose as to the amount 
--'· ._ 
due to the appellant, the Government of West Bengal made the refer-
ence for adjudication to the First Labour Court, West Bengal. Upon the 
construction of sub·s. (2) of s. 17 as indicated at (ii) above, it is beyond 
~ 
F 
dispute that the Government of West Bengal is competent to make the 
reference. The High Court erred in holding that the reference was 
without jurisdiction and that it was the State of Maharashtra which was 
competent to make the reference. [47

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.