Case: M/s. Bennet Coleman &amp; Co. Ltd Vs. State of Bihar &amp; Others

The allegation is that the recommendations of the Manisana Wage Board have not been properly implemented, a section of the journalists have been discriminated in a hostile manner and thus, there is unfair labour practice3. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Patna preferred a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna with the allegations referred to above seeking prosecution of the appellant under Section 25U read with Section 29 of the I.D. Act4. The appellant preferred a petition before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the same was dismissed holding that the complaint was maintainable and thus, the present appeal.

Court's reasoning:
18. Having regard to the scheme of the Working Journalists Act and having regard to the provisions of the I.D. Act, as incorporated by Section 3 of the Working Journalists Act, prosecution for unfair labour practice is maintainable only under Section 25U. Section 25U provides for penalty for committing unfair labour practice and Section 29 provides for penalty for breach of settlement or award. Section 2(ra) of the I.D. Act defines unfair labour practice. Settlement is defined under Section 2(p) to be a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings and includes a written agreement between the employer and the workmen otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceedings. The recommendations of the Wage Board is thus neither an award nor a settlement in terms of the provisions under the I.D. Act. It is not passed by the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal or National Industrial Tribunal and it is not an Arbitration Award in terms of Section 10A of the I.D. Act. It is not a settlement in terms of Section 2(b) of the I.D. Act. It is not an agreement between the parties. Its enforceability, being a recommendation, depends on the order passed by the Central Government. The Central Government has passed that order by issuing Annexure P1 notification. If the same is not complied with, as we have already referred to above, the remedies lie under Section 17 for recovery or under Section 18 for penalty and not under the provisions of the I.D. Act19. During the course of hearing, we are informed that the Employees Union have already taken recourse to the remedy under Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists Act with regard to the amounts due in terms of the notification issued by the Central Government under Section 12 and the same is pending before the Labour Court, Patna (Case Reference No.7/2013). If the Labour Court passes an appropriate award and in case the same is not implemented then alone there arises a question of prosecution under Section 25U read with Serial No.13 of the Fifth Schedule of the I.D. Act "Failure to implement award, settlement or agreement"21. A bare reading of the provision would show that the same provides for exercise of the powers of the Tribunal by the Wage Board in the process of making its recommendations in regulating its procedure. The provision does not make Wage Board a Tribunal. The Tribunal under the I.D. Act does not make recommendations, it passes award; whereas the Wage Board under the Working Journalists Act is competent only to make a recommendation in terms of Section 10 and after the notification of the recommendations by the Central Government if there is any dispute regarding any amount due under the notification, a dispute is raised under Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists Act and thereafter an award is passed by the Labour Court.