Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors. - Court Judgment

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503920',
			'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
			'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
			'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
			'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dipak Misra, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503920',
		(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503920',
		'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
		'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
		'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
		'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. </p><p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p>After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503920',
	(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503920/nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503920',
			'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
			'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
			'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
			'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dipak Misra, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503920',
		(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503920',
		'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
		'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
		'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
		'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. </p><p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p>After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503920',
	(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503920/nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503920',
			'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
			'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
			'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
			'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dipak Misra, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503920',
		(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503920',
		'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
		'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
		'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
		'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. </p><p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p>After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503920',
	(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503920/nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503920',
			'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
			'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
			'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
			'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dipak Misra, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503920',
		(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503920',
		'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
		'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
		'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
		'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. </p><p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p>After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503920',
	(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503920/nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503920',
			'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
			'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
			'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
			'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dipak Misra, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503920',
		(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503920',
		'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
		'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
		'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
		'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. </p><p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p>After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503920',
	(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503920/nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>After the amendment the provisions read as under ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Dipak Misra, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503920',
			'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
			'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
			'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
			'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dipak Misra, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503920',
		(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503920',
		'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
		'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
		'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
		'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. </p><p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p>After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503920',
	(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503920/nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>After the amendment the provisions read as under ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503920',
			'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
			'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
			'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
			'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dipak Misra, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503920',
		(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503920',
		'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
		'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
		'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
		'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. </p><p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p>After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503920',
	(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503920/nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>After the amendment the provisions read as under ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503920',
			'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
			'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
			'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
			'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dipak Misra, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503920',
		(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503920',
		'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
		'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
		'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
		'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. </p><p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p>After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503920',
	(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503920/nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>After the amendment the provisions read as under ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503920',
			'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
			'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
			'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
			'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dipak Misra, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503920',
		(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503920',
		'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
		'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
		'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
		'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. </p><p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p>After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503920',
	(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503920/nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>After the amendment the provisions read as under ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503920',
			'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
			'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
			'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
			'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dipak Misra, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503920',
		(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503920',
		'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
		'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
		'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
		'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. </p><p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p>After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503920',
	(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503920/nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>After the amendment the provisions read as under ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503920',
			'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
			'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
			'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
			'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dipak Misra, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503920',
		(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503920',
		'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
		'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
		'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
		'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. </p><p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p>After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503920',
	(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503920/nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>After the amendment the provisions read as under ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503920',
			'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
			'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
			'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
			'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dipak Misra, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503920',
		(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503920',
		'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
		'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
		'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
		'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. </p><p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p>After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503920',
	(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503920/nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>After the amendment the provisions read as under ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503920',
			'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
			'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
			'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
			'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dipak Misra, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503920',
		(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503920',
		'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
		'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
		'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
		'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. </p><p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p>After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503920',
	(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503920/nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>After the amendment the provisions read as under ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

After the amendment the provisions read as under

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503920',
			'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
			'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
			'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
			'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dipak Misra, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503920',
		(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503920',
		'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
		'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
		'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
		'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. </p><p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p>After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503920',
	(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503920/nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>After the amendment the provisions read as under ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503920',
			'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
			'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
			'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
			'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dipak Misra, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503920',
		(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503920',
		'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
		'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
		'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
		'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. </p><p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p>After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503920',
	(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503920/nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>After the amendment the provisions read as under ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503920',
			'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
			'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
			'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
			'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dipak Misra, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503920',
		(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503920',
		'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
		'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
		'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
		'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. </p><p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p>After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503920',
	(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503920/nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>After the amendment the provisions read as under ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503920',
			'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
			'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
			'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
			'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dipak Misra, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503920',
		(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503920',
		'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
		'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
		'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
		'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. </p><p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p>After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503920',
	(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503920/nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>After the amendment the provisions read as under ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503920',
			'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
			'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
			'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
			'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dipak Misra, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503920',
		(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503920',
		'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
		'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
		'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
		'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. </p><p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p>After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503920',
	(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503920/nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>After the amendment the provisions read as under ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503920',
			'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
			'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
			'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
			'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dipak Misra, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503920',
		(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503920',
		'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
		'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
		'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
		'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. </p><p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p>After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503920',
	(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503920/nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>After the amendment the provisions read as under ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 14
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503920',
			'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
			'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
			'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
			'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dipak Misra, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503920',
		(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503920',
		'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
		'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
		'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
		'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. </p><p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p>After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503920',
	(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503920/nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>After the amendment the provisions read as under ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 15
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503920',
			'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
			'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
			'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
			'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dipak Misra, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503920',
		(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503920',
		'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
		'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
		'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
		'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. </p><p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p>After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503920',
	(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503920/nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>After the amendment the provisions read as under ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 16
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503920',
			'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
			'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
			'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
			'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dipak Misra, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503920',
		(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503920',
		'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
		'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
		'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
		'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. </p><p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p>After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503920',
	(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503920/nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>After the amendment the provisions read as under ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 17
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503920',
			'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
			'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
			'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
			'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dipak Misra, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503920',
		(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503920',
		'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
		'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
		'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
		'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. </p><p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p>After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503920',
	(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503920/nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>After the amendment the provisions read as under ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 18
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503920',
			'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
			'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
			'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
			'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dipak Misra, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503920',
		(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503920',
		'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
		'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
		'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
		'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. </p><p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p>After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503920',
	(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503920/nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>After the amendment the provisions read as under ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 19
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503920',
			'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
			'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
			'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
			'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dipak Misra, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503920',
		(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503920',
		'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
		'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
		'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
		'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. </p><p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p>After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503920',
	(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503920/nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>After the amendment the provisions read as under ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 20
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503920',
			'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
			'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
			'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
			'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dipak Misra, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503920',
		(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503920',
		'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
		'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
		'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
		'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. </p><p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p>After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503920',
	(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503920/nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>After the amendment the provisions read as under ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 21
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503920',
			'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
			'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
			'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
			'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dipak Misra, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503920',
		(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503920',
		'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
		'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
		'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
		'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. </p><p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p>After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503920',
	(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503920/nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>After the amendment the provisions read as under ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 22
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503920',
			'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
			'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
			'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
			'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dipak Misra, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503920',
		(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nav Bharat Press P Ltd and ors Vs State of M P and ors - Citation 503920 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503920',
		'acts' => 'Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955- Sections 17; <a href="/act/51293/industrial-disputes-act-1947-complete-act">Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 340/1989',
		'appellant' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Nav Bharat Press (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. ' After the amendment the provisions read as under 17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.;',
		'citingcases' => 'XXX  XXX  XXX;XXX  XXX  XXX',
		'counselplain' => 'R.P. Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dinesh Agarwal and ;Ramesh Shrivastava, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2000-02-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Dipak Misra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. </p><p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.</p><p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.</p><p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. </p><p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.</p><p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:</p><p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' </p><p>After the amendment the provisions read as under </p><p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.</p><p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. </p><p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' </p><p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: </p><p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.</p><p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' </p><p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: </p><p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'</p><p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: </p><p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' </p><p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. </p><p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. </p><p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2000(86)FLR556]; (2000)IILLJ1275MP; 2000(3)MPHT240',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503920',
	(int) 1 => 'nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503920/nav-bharat-press-p-ltd-vs-state-m'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = ' and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Dipak Misra, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 24, 1988 contained in Annexure I and the recovery certificate Annexure J issued in pursuance of the said order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the original respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,992.50 towards the differential salary which was due to him under the Palekar Award. He also prayed for gratuity. The arrears of salary were claimed for the period October, 1979 to January, 1986. The petitioner resisted the said claim filing an objection. It was put forth before the competent authority that the respondent No. 3 was not in employment of the petitioners herein and, therefore, was not entitled to the amount claimed. The positive plea of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3 was an employee of 'Shri Block Works' and had nothing to do with the petitioners' establishment which is known as 'Nav Bharat Press Private Ltd.', An affidavit was filed by the Supervisor to that effect. The competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein, without appreciating objection raised by the petitioners passed an order vide Annexure I directing payment of amount claimed by the original respondent No. 3 (now substituted by L. Rs.). It is averred that respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy in question as the petitioner had disputed the factum of employment of the original respondent No. 3, Jugraj Singh Sarathe under the petitioners and the State Government could have only referred for adjudication to the Competent Labour Court as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. No return has been filed by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a return in support of the award.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. I have heard Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Agarwal, learned G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ramesh Shrivastava for the substituted legal heir of original respondent No. 3. Shri Jain has contended that once the status of the original respondent No. 3 was disputed the respondent No, 2 could not have adjudicated the controversy as it was beyond his jurisdiction and the State Government at best could have referred the matter. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Kasturi & Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 : (1958-I-LLJ-527), Newspapers and Periodicals, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, and Nav Bharat Press v. State of M. P., M.P. No. 311 of 1980 decided on July 28, 1980, 1982 LIC 684. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Combating the aforesaid contention, Shri Shrivastava and Shri Patel have canvassed that the Competent Authority has taken all the materials on record and the findings are based on cogent reasons and, therefore, the impugned order is unassailable.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to the unamended Section 17 of the Act which reads as under:',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer, under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>After the amendment the provisions read as under ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'17 (1)--Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the State Government, or such authority, as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in forcein the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act, or law. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in Sub-section (1).' ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>6. In the case of Kasturi & Sons (supra), the Apex Court has considered the unamended provisions. Their Lordships' view is as under: ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'The section provides for a procedure to recover the amount due from an employer, not for the determination of the question as to what amount is due. The condition precedent for the application of Section 17 is a prior determination by a competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by Section 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXWhenever the legislature wants to confer upon any specified authority, powers of a Civil Court in the matter of holding enquiries, specific provision is made in that behalf. If the legislature intended that the enquiry authorised under Section 17 should include within its compass the examination of the merits of the employee's claim against his employer and a decision on it, the legislature would undoubtedly have made an appropriate provision conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> XXX XXX XXXThe powers of the authority specified under Section 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the incidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the Industrial Tribunal, since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority the relevant and adequate powers to hold a formal enquiry, it would be difficult to accept the position that various questions which may arise between the working journalists and their employers were intended to be dealt with in a summary and an informal manner without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority in that behalf.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>7. In the case of Newspapers and Periodicals (supra) their Lordships while considering a case after the amended provisions, expressed the view as under: ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'The above observations of the Supreme Court apply equally even while construing the ambit and scope of Section 17 as it stands now (after its substitution by Central Act No. 65 of 1962). The position has not changed except for the fact that under Sub-section (2), as it stands now, the State Government has been conferred with powers to refer the question, the question being as to what amount, if any, is due to a working journalist from his employer, to an appropriate Labour Court for adjudication. The amount due under the Act means wages, which the newspaper employee claims he is entitled to get from his employer, as fixed by the Wage Board constituted under the Act to that category of employees to which he claims that he belongs. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi & Sons' case that it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount invoking Section 17.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nav Bharat Press (supra) held as under: ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'From the facts stated above, it is clear that a dispute did arise within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Act relating to the interpretation of the Wage BoardRecommendations in the context of dearness allowance payable to the employees. The dispute cannot be decided without properly interpreting the Wage Board Report in the light of the Census Report of 1971. Such a matter could not have been determined by the Labour Commissioner under Section 17(1). In our opinion, the State Government was bound to make a reference under Section 17(2).' ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>9. On a reading of the amended provisions and keeping in view the decisions governing the field, it is graphically clear that a dispute arising with regard to amount due under the Act has to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a>. When the due is disputed on one ground or other the authority cannot adjudicate that lis and determine the rights. In the case at hand on a perusal of Annexure D, it is absolutely clear that the claim of the petitioner was resisted on the ground that he was never an employee of the petitioner. This stand has also been taken note of by the Deputy Labour Commissioner but he proceeded to adjudicate the matter. In the opinion of this Court when dispute of this nature was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner he could not have adjudicate the controversy under Section 17(1) of the Act and the matter could have been referred for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed vide Annexure I is untenable and is liable to be quashed and accordingly, I do so. However, it is directed that the State Government shall make a reference of the dispute to the competent Labour Court constituted under the <a>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947</a> within a period of 2 months from receipt of this order. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs (sic). The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. <p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 23
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109