Delhi High CourtHt Media Limited vs Deputy Labour Commissioner & Anr. on 20 February, 2018Author:Vinod GoelBench:Vinod Goel$~41

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                 Date of Judgment: 20.02.2018

+                W.P. (C) 11109/2015 & CM No. 28778/2015

        HT MEDIA LIMITED                                       ..... Petitioner
                                  Through: Mr.Rajshekhar Rao, Advocate
                                  with Mr.Nakul Sachdeva and Mr.Ankit
                                  Rajgarhia, Advocates.

                                  versus

        DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER & ANR... Respondents
                                  Through: Mr.Sanjoy Ghose, ASC for R-1
                                  with Ms.Urvi Mohan, Advocate.
                                  Mr.Umesh Sharma, Advocate for R-2.
        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL

VINOD GOEL, J. (ORAL)1.      By this writ petition filed underArticle 226of the Constitution
        of India, the petitioner, which is a newspaper establishment,
        seeks              quashing         of       the     summon          bearing
        No.18/WJA/DLC/NDD/2015/3452 dated 16.11.2015 issued to
        them by the Deputy Labour Commissioner/respondent no.1.2.      The respondent no.2 had approached the respondent no.1 to
        give         him     benefit   of        Majithia   Wage   Board      AwardW.P (C) 11109/2015                                                    Page 1 of 4recommendations which were accepted by the Central
        Government on 11.11.2011.3.      Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
        had to invoke the jurisdiction of this court as the petitioner
        establishment had an apprehension that the respondent no.1
        intends to assume the jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue
        involved between the parties underSection 17 (1)of the
        Working Journalists & Other Newspaper Employees (Condition
        of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955 (in short
        „Working Journalists Act‟) instead of making a reference by the
        Government of NCT of Delhi under Section 17 (2) of the
        Working Journalists Act to the Labour Court in accordance with
        the law.4.      Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon an order dated
        13.10.2017 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Contempt
        Petition (C) 411/2014, wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has
        passed the following order:-"1.    Upon hearing the learned counsel for the
                 applicant we clarify our Judgment dated 19.06.2017 to
                 mean that dispute(s) referred for adjudication underSection 17 (2)of the Working Journalists and Other
                 Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and
                 Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 will be disposed
                 of by the concerned Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal
                 as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within six
                 months of the reference being made.2.     With     the    aforesaid    clarification the
                 miscellaneous application is disposed of."W.P (C) 11109/2015                                             Page 2 of 45.      He also relies upon another order of the Hon'ble Supreme
        Court dated 04.10.2016 in the said Contempt Petition
        No.411/2014 in W.P. (C) 246/2011 and the relevant para of the
        order reads as under: -"In all cases where there is a dispute with regard to the
                 amount payable, we direct the State Governments to
                 act under the provisions ofSection 17(2)of the
                 Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees
                 (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions
                 Act, 1955. The concerned Labour Court will finalize
                 its award expeditiously and send the same to the State
                 Government for due execution."6.      Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
        establishment has been directed by the impugned notice to
        produce its evidence and documents in support of his defence.7.      Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submit that it
        was merely a summon on the application by the respondent no.2
        and no formal order has been passed by the respondent no.1
        hence, the petition is not maintainable merely on the basis of a
        summon issued by the respondent no.1.8.      At this stage, with the consent of the parties, this writ petition is
        disposed of in the following terms: -(a)      that the petitioner shall appear before the Deputy Labour
                 Commissioner under Working Journalists Act               with a
                 representation along with the copies of relevant
                 documents within four weeks;W.P (C) 11109/2015                                                Page 3 of 4(b)       The Deputy Labour Commissioner shall decide the
                  grievances/representations of the petitioner in accordance
                  with law expeditiously.9.      In view of the above, CM 28778/2015 also stands disposed of.(VINOD GOEL)
                                                           JUDGE

        FEBRUARY 20, 2018
        "shailendra"W.P (C) 11109/2015                                            Page 4 of 4