Case: Samarjit Ghosh Vs. Bennett Coleman and Company and Another

The appellant is a working journalist employed by the respondents, Messrs. Bennett Coleman and Company Limited. The registered office of the company is at Bombay and its press is located in Calcutta. The sales office of the company is situated in Calcutta. On 1 November, 1961 the appellant was appointed a staff correspondent in the Calcutta office of the company. The letter of appointment dated 9 November, 1961 was issued by the company from its registered office at Bombay. Subsequently, the appellant was promoted to the post of Industrial Correspondent, Pune and was transferred from Calcutta to Pune from 16 February, 1976. Upon transfer to Pune the appellant received his remuneration and allowances from the Pune office of the company, and he was under the direct control and supervision of the registered office of the company situated inthe appellant was in Calcutta and before his transfer on promotion to Pune the appellant applied to the Labour Department, Government of West Bengal on 29 April, 1975 under sub-s. (1) of s. 17 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 the unpaid portion of his wages relating to the period April, 1968 to February, 1973 from the employer company. On 14 May, 1975 the Government of West Bengal initiated conciliation proceedings. The employer company participated in the conciliation proceedings and a joint conciliation meeting was held before the Conciliation Officer, Calcutta. The appellant was transferred to Pune while the report of the conciliation proceedings was still awaited. On 16 November, 1976 the Conciliation Officer reported failure of the conciliation proceedings and recommended that the dispute be referred to the Labour Court under sub s. (2) of s. 17 of the Act. Accordingly, the Government of West Bengal made a reference on 23 August, 1977 t o the First Labour Court, West Bengal for the adjudication of the dispute between the parties. An objection was raised by the employer company before the First Labour Court that the reference was incompetent as the Government of West Bengal had no power to make the reference. On 11 July, 1980 the First Labour Court rejected the objection. The order was challenged by the employer company by a writ petition filed in the High Court. By his judgment and order dated 5 August, 1982, the learned Single Judge held that the reference was incompetent. That view was affirmed by a Division Bench of the High Court in appeal. And now this appeal by special leave.

Reasoning: Turning to the facts of the present case, it is clear that the application under sub-s. (1) of s. 17 was made on 29 April, 1975 when the appellant was employed at the Calcutta Branch of the employer company. He made the application to the Labour Department of the Government of West Bengal for recovery of the unpaid portion of his wages. When the question arose as to the amount due to the appellant, the Government of West Bengal made the reference for adjudication to the First Labour Court, West Bengal. Upon the construction of sub-s. (2) of s. 17 which has found favour with us, it is beyond dispute, we think, that t he Government of West Bengal is competent to make the reference. In our opinion the High Court erred in holding that the reference was without jurisdiction and that it was the State of Maharashtra which was competent to make the reference. The application for recovery was rightly made by the appellant before the Government of West Bengal because he was then employed by the Branch Office of the employer company, Calcutta. Once we hold that the application was rightly made before the Government of West Bengal, the further conclusion must necessarily follow that it was the Government of West Bengal which possessed the power to refer the question for adjudication. It seems to us that the High Court omitted to appreciate the inter-relationship between the different provisions of s. 17 and the fact that if the proceeding under sub-s. (1) of s. 17 was commenced rightly before a State Government it was that State Government alone which should make a reference to a Labour Court for adjudication.A number of cases have been placed before us, but we do not consider it necessary to refer to them having regard to the view taken by us upon a plain analysis of the statutorymay note that the fundamental question before us is whether the Government of West Bengal was competent to make the reference. We do not consider it appropriate to decide any other questions arising upon the reference since the reference must, pursuant to this judgment, be considered to be pending still and those questions can be raised there. Our attention has been drawn by learned counsel for the employer company to an award of the Labour Court of West Bengal where, it is said, the question covered by the impugned reference has already been concluded on its merits. That is a submission which is open to the employer company during the proceedings before the Labour Court upon the impugned reference. We are concerned with a limited point and w e need go no further.