M/S. Colcom Plastic Ltd. And ... vs Union Of India And Others on 12 December, 1996
Showing the contexts in which working journalist act doctypes: delhi appears in the document
16. Section 10 of the Act provides for reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals. This section, inter alia, provides that where the appropriate Government is of the opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time, by order in writing refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute if it relates to any matters specified in the Second Schedule to a Labour Court for adjudication or refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to the dispute, whether it relates to any matters specified
workman's application. Comparing the language used in Section 33-C(1) could be initiated. with the language used in Section 33-C(2) could be initiated. the Supreme Court held that claims made under Section 33-C(1) could be initiated. by itself can be only claims referable to settlement, award or relevant provisions of Chapter V-A. This decision would be equally applicable to claims referable to Chapter V-B. 21. In Kasturi & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran and another, (1958-I-LLJ-527) (SC) scope of Section 17 of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955 came up for consideration. That section reads as under :- "Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate
Kasturi & Sons case (supra) the employer/petitioner company before the Supreme Court was the proprietor of a daily newspaper 'The Hindu'. The first respondent N. Salivateswaran, a Journalisthad been supplying news to various newspapers and journals, one of which was 'The Hindu'. That supply was under an agreement under which respondent No. 1 was being paid a fixed monthly honorarium. Contrary to the advice and instructions of the employer the first respondent left India for Zurich on May 1, 1956 and thereupon the employer relieved him of his duties and terminated with effect from March 1, 1956, the arrangement under which he was supplying news to The Hindu. Respondent No. 1 returned to India in July 1956 and requested the employer to reconsider the decision but the employer did not think that any case for reconsideration had been made out. Thereupon the first respondent made an application under Section 17 of the aforesaid act. The State of Bombay nominated a retired ICS Officer under Section 17 of the Act for the purpose of enquiry into the first respondent's application and requested him to examine the claim made by the first respondent and in case he was satisfied
claim in the appropriate civil Court. On the preliminary issue of jurisdiction the nominated authority held that he had jurisdiction to deal with the matter and that it was unnecessary to direct the first respondent to establish his claim in the ordinary civil Court. This order led to the employer filing a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court. The case of the petitioner/employer before the Supreme Court was that Section 17 provides only for a mode of recovery of any money due to a working journalist and it does not empower the State Government or authorities specified by the State Government to act as a forum for adjudicating upon the merits of the disputed claim. Before the Supreme Court one of the contentions of the employer was that the condition precedent for application under Section 17 is a proper determination by a competent authority or the court of the amount due to an employee from the employer and it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given
workman's application. Comparing the language used in Section 33-C(1) could be initiated. with the language used in Section 33-C(2) could be initiated. the Supreme Court held that claims made under Section 33-C(1) could be initiated. by itself can be only claims referable to settlement, award or relevant provisions of Chapter V-A. This decision would be equally applicable to claims referable to Chapter V-B. 21. In Kasturi & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. N. Salivateswaran and another, (1958-I-LLJ-527) (SC) scope of Section 17 of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955 came up for consideration. That section reads as under :- "Where any money is due to a newspaper employee from an employer under any of the provisions of this Act, whether by way of compensation, gratuity or wages, the newspaper employee may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate
Kasturi & Sons case (supra) the employer/petitioner company before the Supreme Court was the proprietor of a daily newspaper 'The Hindu'. The first respondent N. Salivateswaran, a Journalisthad been supplying news to various newspapers and journals, one of which was 'The Hindu'. That supply was under an agreement under which respondent No. 1 was being paid a fixed monthly honorarium. Contrary to the advice and instructions of the employer the first respondent left India for Zurich on May 1, 1956 and thereupon the employer relieved him of his duties and terminated with effect from March 1, 1956, the arrangement under which he was supplying news to The Hindu. Respondent No. 1 returned to India in July 1956 and requested the employer to reconsider the decision but the employer did not think that any case for reconsideration had been made out. Thereupon the first respondent made an application under Section 17 of the aforesaid act. The State of Bombay nominated a retired ICS Officer under Section 17 of the Act for the purpose of enquiry into the first respondent's application and requested him to examine the claim made by the first respondent and in case he was satisfied
claim in the appropriate civil Court. On the preliminary issue of jurisdiction the nominated authority held that he had jurisdiction to deal with the matter and that it was unnecessary to direct the first respondent to establish his claim in the ordinary civil Court. This order led to the employer filing a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court. The case of the petitioner/employer before the Supreme Court was that Section 17 provides only for a mode of recovery of any money due to a working journalist and it does not empower the State Government or authorities specified by the State Government to act as a forum for adjudicating upon the merits of the disputed claim. Before the Supreme Court one of the contentions of the employer was that the condition precedent for application under Section 17 is a proper determination by a competent authority or the court of the amount due to an employee from the employer and it is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given
No comments:
Post a Comment