M-S. AWAZ PRAKASHAN PRIVATE LIMITED v. PRAMOD KUMAR PUJARI

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 347

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, P. VENKATARAMA REDDI

Judgment text

,, MIS. AWAZ PRAKASHAN PRIVATE LIMITED V. PRAMOD KUMAR PUJARI APRIL 2, 2003 [K. G. BALAKRISHNAN AND P. VENKATARAMA REDD! , JJ. ] Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Retrenchment-Reporter ofa newspaper-Retrenchment of-Challenged as effected without complying with provisions ofthe Act-Labour Court ordered reinstatement-Employer's contention before High Court that Industrial Disputes Act had no application to the case rejected-Held, in view of provisions of ss.

3 and I 1 of Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions ofService and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, it cannot be said that the Board constituted under 1955 Act had the jurisdiction and not the Labour Court-The Board constituted uls 1I of 1955 Act is not a substitute/or Labour Court-The Board is mainlyfor considering the working conditions of the newspaper employees and also to fix rates of wages of working journalists from time to time-The provisions contained in the 1955 Act do not say that all disputes relating to working journalists shall be considered and decided by the Board-The Board can decide only those disputes which are re/erred to it-Besides, the employer did not raise any objection before Labour Court as to itsjurisdiction to decide the dispute-Nor was the reference order challenged 011 this ground-High Court rightly dismissed employer's writ petition-Working Journalists and Other Newspapers (Conditions ofService and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, I955-Ss.

3 and IJ. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7458 of2000. From the Judgment and Order dated 13. 1. 1999 of the Patna High Court in LPA 51/98(R). S. K. Sinha for the Appellant. The following Order of the Court was delivered. The appellant challenges the Judgment of the Patna High Court in LPA No. 5I of I999 (R). The appellant was running a printing press and was publishing a daily newspaper by name Awaz. The respondent was a Reporter of the newspaper at Ranchi. Ac d. l Incidentally, it may be mentioned that the appellant did not raise any objection before the Labour court as to its jurisdiction to decide the dispute relating to the retrenchment of the respondent. The Reference Order was not challenged by the appellant by contending that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to decide the question. The appellant challenged the award passed by the Labour Court belatedly and the appellant's Writ Petition has been rightly rejected by the High Court.

The Civil Appeal is without any merits and the same is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. R. P. Appeal dismissed.