*THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 6939 of 2008 % 01-04-2008 # V. Sreenivasa Rao & others …Petitioners and $ The Authority Under Sec.17(1) of Working Journalists & other News Paper Employees (Conditions of Service) & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 & Dy. Commissioner of Labour (Twin Cities) T. Anjaiah Karmika Bhavan, RTC X-Road, Hyderabad.& another. …Respondents ! COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS: Sri S. Ravindranath ^ COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: G.P. for Labour < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: -Nil- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6939 of 2008 Between: 1 V. Sreenivasa Rao S/o. Late Sri V.S.N. Murthy R/o. Plot No.360, Flat No.B-1, Maruthi Apartments II, Chandragiri Colony, Neerdmet, Hyderabad 500056. 2 B. Rajamouli S/o. B. Venkataiah R/o. H.No.10-4-B/270, Addagutta, East Marredpally, Secunderabad 3 S. Satyanarayana S/o. Late Sri S. Pentaiah R/o. H.No.L-Block, 193, Ram Gopalpet, Secunderabad-3. 4 K. Narayana S/o. Late Sri Veeraiah R/o. H.No.32-67/28, Anthaiah Colony, Ramakrishnapuram, Secunderabad-56. 5 Ch. Nageswara Rao S/o. Late Sri Ch. Bhaskar Rao R/o. H.No.7-144/5, Laxmi Nagar Colony, Nagaram, Hyderabad. 6 D. Laxmi Das S/o. Late Sri D. Hanumaiah R/o. H.No.1-6-42, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 7 P. Ranganayakulu S/o. Late Sri P. Hari Prasada Rao R/o. H.No.1150, EWS, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-72. 8 D. Sravan Kumar S/o. Late Sri Yadagiri R/o. H.No.L/213, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad-3. 9 K. Dhananjayudu S/o. Late Sri K. Ramachandraiah R/o. H.No.3-240/10, Old Safilguda, Near Vinayak Nagar, Neredmet Post, Secunderabad 556. 10 B. Gopal, S/o. Late Sri B. Govinda Chary 11 K. Mohan Rao S/o. Late Sri K. Raghunadha Rao R/o. H.No.6-110/4, Teachers Colony, Nagaram, R.R. District, Hyderabad. 12 K. Venugopal Reddy S/o. Late Sri K. Sunki Reddy R/o. H.No.30-240/11, Old Safilguda, Secunderabad 556. 13 M. Biksham Reddy S/o. Sri M. Venkat Reddy R/o. H.No.1-3-308, Sai Krupa Apartments, Flat No.302, Near Saibaba Temple, Kavadiguda, Secunderabad 500 028. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Authority Under Sec.17(1) of Working Journalists & other News Paper Employees (Conditions of Service) & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 & Dy. Commissioner of Labour (Twin Cities) T. Anjaiah Karmika Bhavan, RTC X-Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Managing Director, The Deccan Chronicle, 36 Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad 500 003. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order, direction or a writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari and quash order in WJ/1/2005 to WJ/13/2005 dated 3rd March, 2008 and direct the first respondent to issue a certificate for recovery of Rs.1,82,62,929/- from the second respondent and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.RAVINDRANATH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : O R D E R: The petitioners claim that they worked in different capacities with the 2nd respondent, till they retired under Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) in the year 2005. Stating that the wages paid to them for several years, up to the date of their retirement, were not in accordance with the provisions of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, (for short “the Act”), they filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Act, before the 1st respondent. They claim different amounts, ranging from 5,62,881/- by the 4th petitioner, to Rs.12,95,396/- by the 12th petitioner, as difference of wages. Reference was made to the Wage Board Awards passed by Justice Palekar, Justice Bachawat and Justice Manisana. The individual claims, numbered as W.J.Nos.1 to 13 of 2005, were clubbed. The 1st respondent opposed the claims of the petitioners, on several grounds. Through a common order, dated 3.3.2008, the 1st respondent rejected the claims, for want of jurisdiction. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Sri S. Ravindranath, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the entitlement of the petitioners is referable to the statutory awards, which have become final, and the 1st respondent was not justified in taking the view that it does not have jurisdiction to entertain the claims. He contends that there was no necessity for the petitioners, to avail the remedy under Section 17(2) of the Act. Sri A. Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, who took notice at the stage of admission, contends that once the petitioners have retired under VRS, it is not open to them, to claim the alleged arrears of salaries. He contends that an application under Section 17(1) of the Act can be maintained, only when the claim of an employee was adjudicated in an earlier set of proceedings, or where there is no dispute about it. The Act is a special legislation, dealing with the service conditions of journalists and employees of Newspapers. It is no doubt true that the wages of the persons governed by the Act are determined by the Wage Boards, constituted by the Government, from time to time. Whenever an employee feels that the emoluments paid to him are not in accordance with the relevant award, he has to approach the concerned authority for adjudication, if his claim was not accepted by the management. An application under Section 17(1) of the Act, is comparable to the one, under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is only the undisputed, or adjudicated amounts, that can be recovered under those applications. Sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act, clearly mandates that if there is any dispute about the entitlement of an employee, he has to approach the Labour Court, with a proper application. In the instant case, the respondents strongly refuted the allegations of the petitioners, as to their entitlement. Another factor is that the petitioners stood retired from service, in the year 2005 under VRS Scheme. Further, the alleged arrears are referable to the period from 1988 onwards. The legality, or enforceability of such a claim, is very much at issue. Therefore, the claims made by the petitioners are totally outside the scope of Section 17(1) of the Act. The 1st respondent has taken correct view of the matter, and this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioners, to work out their remedies, under Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ 1st April 2008 PAN