Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1071 (GUJ)

Prashant Arun Dayal v. D B Corp Limited

2014-10-08

PARESH UPADHYAY

body2014
ORDER : Paresh Upadhyay, J. The petitioners are the Journalists and other employees working with the respondent Company which publishes daily newspaper viz. Divya Bhaskar at Ahmedabad and at other places. The respondent D.B. Corp Limited is one of the leading name in the world of print media in the country. The principal grievance of the petitioners is that, the respondent - Management is not paying wages to its employees, both journalist and non-journalist, as per the recommendations of the Majithiya Wage Board, as accepted by the Central Government by its order dated 11.11.2011, and as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Serious grievance is made by the petitioners against the Management that, to make a show that, it is the employees who do not want wages as per the recommendations of the Majithiya Wage Board, all sorts of arm-twisting tactics are resorted to, by the Management, including transfer to other States etc. It is in this background, the petitioners have approached this Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayers. "(A) To direct the respondents to make payment of wages to its employees both journalist and non-journalist as per the recommendations of the Majithiya Wage Board and as accepted by the Central Government by its order dated 11.11.2011 and as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, along with all arrears; (AA) To direct the respondent to implement the order of the Central Government of 11.11.2011 regarding the Majithiya wage board recommendations and directions of the Honourable Supreme Court dated 07.02.2014 and make payment of wages as per the order and continue to pay accordingly. (AAA) To direct the respondent no.7 State of Gujarat to take appropriate action under the Act and under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against respondents. (AAA) To direct the respondent no.7 State of Gujarat to take appropriate action under the Act and under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against respondents. (B) To declare and quash the impugned transfer orders issued by the respondents to all the petitioners; (C) To restrain the respondents from enforcing or implementing or taking any action in pursuance of the impugned transfer orders and direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to work at the same places where they were working before the issuance of the impugned transfer orders; (D) To declare that the declaration required by the respondents and secured by the management under threat and/or force as illegal, involuntary, null and void and retrain the respondents from acting upon the said declaration; (E) To hold that the respondents are guilty of contempt of Court and punish them appropriately for flagrant, deliberate and willful refusal to implement the mandatory directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court [this prayer was sought to be, and is deleted as per the Courts order dated 24.07.2014] (F) During the pendency and /or final disposal of the present petition, be pleased to direct the respondents to make payment of wages to its employees both journalist and non-journalist as per the recommendations of the Majithiya Wage Board and as accepted by the Central Government by its order dated 11.11.2011 and as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, along with all arrears; and to suspend the transfer orders issued by the respondents and to allow the petitioners to serve at Ahmedabad as earlier and to receive payment of wages of current month; (G) To pass such other and further order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice." 2. Heard Mr.Girish Patel, learned senior advocate with Mr. Manoj Shrimali, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr.Soparkar, learned senior advocate with Mr. Rajesh Shah, learned advocate for the contesting respondent Management. 3. Mr.Soparkar, learned senior advocate for the respondent Management has raised preliminary objection about the maintainability of this petition. It is submitted that, the respondent Management is neither State, nor instrumentality of the State, nor does it discharge any public duty, and therefore this petition is not maintainable. It is further submitted that, the petitioners have alternative remedy of approaching the State authorities, as well as the labour forum and on that count also this petition be not entertained. It is submitted that, the respondent Management is neither State, nor instrumentality of the State, nor does it discharge any public duty, and therefore this petition is not maintainable. It is further submitted that, the petitioners have alternative remedy of approaching the State authorities, as well as the labour forum and on that count also this petition be not entertained. It is further submitted that, there are disputed questions of facts involved in the matter, and on that count also, this petition would not be maintainable. It is submitted that, this petition be not entertained. In support of his submissions, reliance is placed on the following decisions of Honourable the Supreme Court of India. (i) Jatya Pal Singh v. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 452 (ii) Shri Samarjit Ghosh v. M/s. Bennett Coleman and Co., AIR 1987 SC 1869 ; (iii) Binny Ltd. v. V.Sadasivan, (2005) 6 SCC 657 4. On the other hand, Mr.Girish Patel, learned senior advocate for the petitioners has submitted that there is complete defiance of the respondent Management about the implementation of the Majithiya wage board recommendations and directions of the Honourable Supreme Court, and further that with a view to disown its legal obligation, all sorts of coercive steps are taken by the respondent Management. Learned Senior advocate for the petitioners has taken this Court through the material on record, in this regard. It is submitted that, true it is, that the respondent Management is neither the State nor instrumentality of the State, but it does discharge duty, which can be termed to be a public duty and therefore the respondent Management is amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. So far the argument of the respondent about the alternative remedy and disputed questions of facts are concerned, it is submitted that, since the Management does not have any say on merits, such contentions are raised to shy away from the judicial scrutiny of its action /inaction, by this Court. It is submitted that, the lack of bona fide of the Management is writ large, since those who refused to sign the declaration, as required by the Management, not pressing for wages as per recommendations of the Majithiya Wage Board, are transferred at distant places like Ranchi etc. It is submitted that, the lack of bona fide of the Management is writ large, since those who refused to sign the declaration, as required by the Management, not pressing for wages as per recommendations of the Majithiya Wage Board, are transferred at distant places like Ranchi etc. It is submitted that according to the petitioners, they have good case on merits, however, whether they are entitled to any relief or not, that can be examined by the Court, but let this petition be considered on merits. It is submitted that, the objection raised by the respondent Management about the maintainability of this petition be overruled, and this petition be admitted. Learned senior advocate for the petitioners has addressed this Court at length, even on merits of the matter, however, since at this stage, only the aspect of the maintainability of this petition is being examined by this Court, those contentions are not recorded and are not gone into. Learned senior advocate for the petitioners has relied on the following decisions of Honourable the Supreme Court of India in support of his contentions. (i) Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi, (1975) 1 SCC 421 (ii) Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, (2005) 4 SCC (iii) Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab, (2012) 12 SCC 331 (iv) ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 553 5. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, and keeping in view the decisions cited by both the sides, as noted above, this Court finds that, even if the issue of transfer of some of the petitioners is kept aside, in substance, the point for consideration before this Court is, as to whether the respondent Management should be directed to pay wages to its employees, both journalist and non-journalist, as per the recommendations of the Majithiya Wage Board, as accepted by the Central Government by its order dated 11.11.2011, and as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. On this principal controversy, this Court does not find any reason, as to why it should not be examined by this Court. Further, prima facie, the respondent Management appears to have resorted to arm-twisting tactics against its employees, to make them to agree, not to press for wages as per the recommendations of the Majithiya Wage Board. On this principal controversy, this Court does not find any reason, as to why it should not be examined by this Court. Further, prima facie, the respondent Management appears to have resorted to arm-twisting tactics against its employees, to make them to agree, not to press for wages as per the recommendations of the Majithiya Wage Board. Under these circumstances, relegating the petitioners to alternative remedies would not be efficacious. Further, the petitioners and the respondent Management both are directly connected with the functioning of print media having substantial influence on the opinion of the people at large, and has also direct nexus with the freedom of speech and expression of the people at large. For this reason, this Court finds that, the respondent Management, though not the State or instrumentality thereof, discharges a public duty and positive obligation of a public nature. Both the learned advocates have relied on the decision of Honourable the Supreme Court of India in the case of Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas reported in (2003) 10 SCC 733 . Para: 18 more particularly [vii] thereof, will have applicability in the present case. Under these circumstances, the objections raised by respondent Management against the maintainability of this petition are rejected. Under these circumstances, this Court is inclined to examine the case of the petitioners on merits. 6. Though number of contentions are raised by both the sides, they are not gone into by this Court at this stage, since no decision is rendered by this Court, on merits, at this stage. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the preliminary objection raised by the respondent Management, against the maintainability of this petition is rejected and it is held that, this petition needs to be considered on merits by this Court. Hence, Rule returnable on 10.11.2014. Petition allowed.