Case: Indian Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. Etc. Etc Vs. Union Of India And Others Etc. Etc

at Madurai and another at Hyderabad. The gross revenue of all the units was Rs 7918.18 crores. They are all consigned to Class I, although their main unit at Bombay and their unit at Madurai belong to Class II and their subsidiary unit at Bombay and their unit at Hyderabad belong to Classes IV and V respectively. It is not necessary to multiply these instances. According to us, in view of the definition of "newspaper establishment" in section 2(d) and the Explanation to Section 10(4) of the Act and also in view of the fifth and sixth propositions of law laid down by this Court in Express Newspapers case as extracted above, the units of an establishment which as branches all over India, can be clubbed together for the purpose of fixation of wages on all-India basis. Since all the units of an establishments are not expected to fare similarly, uniform pay scales for the employees in all the units can be prescribed taking into consideration the financial capacity of the establishment as a whole. The instances pointed out above are the result of the clubbing of the different units of the same establishment15. However, there is much force in the contention of the petitioners that the principle of fixation of the wages on all-India basis has not been applied by the Board with uniform yardstick as is evident from paragraph 6(2) of Section II of Part I of Chapter IX of the Report. Whereas the units of the newspaper establishments falling in any of the Classes VI to IX, as detailed above, on the basis of their own gross revenue are, for the fixation of wages not to be stepped up by more than two classes, the units of the newspaper establishments falling in Classes I-A to V are all to be classified as belonging to the class to which the said establishment belongs on the basis of the gross revenue of all the said units. The result of this discrimination is that for the purposes of fixing the wage scales, the units of the newspaper establishments belonging to Classes VI to IX would not be considered as belonging to the said classes but to the classes which are only two grades above the class to which the said units on the basis of their own revenue properly belong. On the other hand, the units of the establishments belonging to Classes I-A to V would all be considered as belonging to the class to which the establishment itself belongs. The Board has not given any reason as to why while applying the principle of uniform wage scales to all units of an establishment on all-India basis, it has made the discrimination in question between the newspaper establishments belonging to Classes I-A to V and those belonging to Classes VI to IX. The respondents also could not offer any satisfactory explanation or advance a plausible contention to defend the said discrimination. We are, therefore, of the view that the impugned award to be made legally enforceable will have to be modified by extending the limitation of upgradation up to the maximum of two classes laid down in the said para 6(2) also to the newspapers establishments falling in Classes I-A to V16. As regards the other grounds of attack, we are afraid we see no reason to interfere with the award on the said grounds. In view of the amended definition of the "newspaper establishment" under Section 2(d) which came into operation retrospectively from the inception of the Act and the Explanation added to Section 10(4), and in view further of the fact that in clubbing the units of the establishment together, the Board cannot be said to have acted contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Express Newspapers case the classification of the newspaper establishments on all-India basis for the purpose of fixation of wages is not bad in law. Hence it is not violative of the petitioners rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Financial capacity of an all-India newspaper establishment has to be considered on the basis of the gross revenue and the financial capacity of all the units taken together. Hence, it cannot be said that the petitioner-companies as all-India newspaper establishments are not viable whatever the financial incapacity of their individual units. After amendments of Section 2(d) retrospectively read with the addition of the Explanation to Section 10(4), the old provisions can no longer be pressed into service to contend against the grouping of the units of the all-India establishments, into one class 17. The other contentions advanced on behalf of the Indian Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. are as follows. Firstly, it is contended that the benefit of the provisions of paragraph 12 of Section II of Part I of Chapter IX is not given to the petitioner-establishment while classifying it. Secondly, while calculating the financial capacity, the award has made no provision even for a reasonable depreciation and to that extent the estimates of the capacity of the establishment to pay the revised wages are seriously flawed. The third contention is that the Board has not considered the burden of retrospective effect it has given to its recommendations from 1-1-1988. Lastly, it is contended that the award has not taken into consideration the cost of newsprint which had in the meanwhile gone up by about 76.6 per cent 18. More or less similar contentions were raised on behalf of other petitioner-establishments. We have made clear at the very outset that some of these contentions raised disputed questions of facts and others, mixed questions of facts and law and hence we will not entertain them. In addition, as far as Indian Express Newspapers (Pvt.) Ltd. is concerned the record shows that the said petitioners had not produced by material before the Board in support of its aforesaid contentions which are for the first time advanced before this Court. In fact, the company had virtually boycotted the proceedings of the Board

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]This has manifestly resulted in the weaker units of the newspaper establishments belonging to the said classes being ranked with the highest in the same class, thus, crippling the weaker units with the heavy unbearable financial burden and forcing them to close. Such classification directly offends the petitioners rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution12. Among the other infirmities which are pointed out in the impugned award, the first that while classifying the establishments, the benefit of paragraph 12 of Section II of Part I of Chapter IX is not given to them by ascertaining whether their advertisement revenue is less or more than 45 per cent of its gross revenue. If this was done and where it was found that it was less than 45 per cent of the gross revenue, the establishments concerned would have been placed in the class next below that in which they are classified on the basis of their gross revenue. Secondly, the award while calculating the financial capacity, has made no provision even for a reasonable depreciation and to that extent the estimates of the capacity of the establishments to pay are seriously flawed. Thirdly, the award has not considered the burden of retrospective effect it has given to its recommendations fromThe burden on the establishments from89 is enormous and the Board wasto calculate the said burden to find out whether the establishments were capable of bearing the same. Lastly, the award has also not taken into consideration the costs of newsprint which had in the meanwhile gone up by about 76.6 per cent13. We find much substance in the contention that the Board has arbitrarily clubbed together the different units of the same establishment and classified all of them with the highest of the class to which itsunit belongs so are as Classesto V are concerned and has not followed in respect of those classes, its own guideline given in the said paragraph 6(2) in respect of the establishments which belong to Classes VI to IX. The Wage Board in paragraph 11 of Section II of Part I of Chapter IX of its Report has classified the different newspaper establishments on the basis of their gross revenueto us, in view of the definition of "newspaper establishment" in section 2(d) and the Explanation to Section 10(4) of the Act and also in view of the fifth and sixth propositions of law laid down by this Court in Express Newspapers case as extracted above, the units of an establishment which as branches all over India, can be clubbed together for the purpose of fixation of wages onbasis. Since all the units of an establishments are not expected to fare similarly, uniform pay scales for the employees in all the units can be prescribed taking into consideration the financial capacity of the establishment as a whole. The instances pointed out above are the result of the clubbing of the different units of the same establishment15. However, there is much force in the contention of the petitioners that the principle of fixation of the wages onbasis has not been applied by the Board with uniform yardstick as is evident from paragraph 6(2) of Section II of Part I of Chapter IX of the Report. Whereas the units of the newspaper establishments falling in any of the Classes VI to IX, as detailed above, on the basis of their own gross revenue are, for the fixation of wages not to be stepped up by more than two classes, the units of the newspaper establishments falling in Classesto V are all to be classified as belonging to the class to which the said establishment belongs on the basis of the gross revenue of all the said units. The result of this discrimination is that for the purposes of fixing the wage scales, the units of the newspaper establishments belonging to Classes VI to IX would not be considered as belonging to the said classes but to the classes which are only two grades above the class to which the said units on the basis of their own revenue properly belong. On the other hand, the units of the establishments belonging to Classesto V would all be considered as belonging to the class to which the establishment itself belongs. The Board has not given any reason as to why while applying the principle of uniform wage scales to all units of an establishment onbasis, it has made the discrimination in question between the newspaper establishments belonging to Classesto V and those belonging to Classes VI to IX. The respondents also could not offer any satisfactory explanation or advance a plausible contention to defend the said discrimination. We are, therefore, of the view that the impugned award to be made legally enforceable will have to be modified by extending the limitation of upgradation up to the maximum of two classes laid down in the said para 6(2) also to the newspapers establishments falling in Classesto V16. As regards the other grounds of attack, we are afraid we see no reason to interfere with the award on the said grounds. In view of the amended definition of the "newspaper establishment" under Section 2(d) which came into operation retrospectively from the inception of the Act and the Explanation added to Section 10(4), and in view further of the fact that in clubbing the units of the establishment together, the Board cannot be said to have acted contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Express Newspapers case the classification of the newspaper establishments onbasis for the purpose of fixation of wages is not bad in law. Hence it is not violative of the petitioners rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Financial capacity of annewspaper establishment has to be considered on the basis of the gross revenue and the financial capacity of all the units taken together. Hence, it cannot be said that theia newspaper establishments are not viable whatever the financial incapacity of their individual units. After amendments of Section 2(d) retrospectively read with the addition of the Explanation to Section 10(4), the old provisions can no longer be pressed into service to contend against the grouping of the units of theestablishments, into oneMore or less similar contentions were raised on behalf of otherWe have made clear at the very outset that some of these contentions raised disputed questions of facts and others, mixed questions of facts and law and hence we will not entertain them. In addition, as far as Indian Express Newspapers (Pvt.) Ltd. is concerned the record shows that the said petitioners had not produced by material before the Board in support of its aforesaid contentions which are for the first time advanced before this Court. In fact, the company had virtually boycotted the proceedings of the Board