Majithia Wage Board Dispute: Supreme Court Ruling on Newspaper Employees’ Wages

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Avishek Raja & Ors. vs. Sanjay Gupta is a landmark decision regarding the implementation of the Majithia Wage Board recommendations for newspaper employees. This case revolved around multiple contempt petitions filed against newspaper establishments that allegedly failed to comply with the wage revisions mandated under the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955.

The Majithia Wage Board was established to ensure fair wages for journalists and non-journalist newspaper employees. The board’s recommendations were notified by the Central Government on November 11, 2011. However, many newspaper establishments did not implement these recommendations, leading employees to file contempt petitions. The Supreme Court, in its ruling on June 19, 2017, addressed whether these establishments were in contempt for non-compliance.

Background of the Case

The Working Journalists Act, 1955 provides a legal framework for regulating service conditions of journalists and non-journalist newspaper employees. It empowers the government to constitute Wage Boards for fixing and revising wages in the industry.

In 2007, the Central Government established the Majithia Wage Board, chaired by Justice G.R. Majithia. The board’s recommendations included:

• Classification of newspaper establishments based on revenue.
• Introduction of revised pay scales.
• Granting of allowances such as dearness allowance, house rent, and transport allowances.
• Mandatory payment of arrears from July 1, 2010.

Following its acceptance by the government, the recommendations became binding. However, several newspaper establishments challenged them in the Supreme Court, arguing financial constraints.

Petitioners’ Arguments

The petitioners, consisting of working journalists and newspaper employees, argued:

• Newspaper establishments had a legal obligation to implement the wage revisions under Section 12 of the Act.
• The non-implementation of the recommendations violated their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Employers coerced employees into signing undertakings that they would not claim higher wages.
• Failure to pay revised wages amounted to contempt of court since the Supreme Court had upheld the Wage Board’s validity in 2014.

Respondents’ Arguments

The newspaper establishments and employers contended:

• Many employees voluntarily opted out of the revised pay scale.
• Financial losses made it impossible to pay arrears and higher wages.
• Contractual employees were not covered under the Wage Board’s recommendations.
• Contempt proceedings were not the appropriate remedy, as the Act provided alternative mechanisms for enforcement.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The bench comprising Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha ruled in favor of the petitioners, affirming that the Majithia Wage Board recommendations must be implemented fully. The court made key observations:

“The wages notified supersede all existing contracts governing wages. Any agreement to receive less than the prescribed wages is non est in law.”

The court also rejected financial hardship as a justification for non-compliance, stating:

“Mere financial difficulties do not justify the non-payment of wages. Only establishments suffering heavy cash losses for three consecutive years may seek exemption, but such cases must be substantiated.”

Regarding claims that employees voluntarily opted out, the court directed labor authorities to verify whether such undertakings were obtained under coercion.

Implementation and Monitoring

To ensure compliance, the court directed all State Governments to appoint inspectors under Section 17B of the Act. These inspectors were tasked with:

• Verifying whether the Majithia Wage Board recommendations were being followed.
• Investigating claims of forced undertakings by employees.
• Submitting reports on implementation status.

The court also ruled that disputes regarding arrears and wrongful terminations should be resolved through the Labor Courts, as provided under the Act.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment reinforced the legal mandate of the Majithia Wage Board and emphasized the obligation of newspaper establishments to pay fair wages. By dismissing the employers’ claims of financial hardship and enforcing strict compliance, the ruling set a precedent for labor rights in the media industry.

The case highlights the judiciary’s role in upholding wage justice and ensuring that statutory rights of employees are not diluted by employer influence. This decision remains a cornerstone in labor law jurisprudence for working journalists in India.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Avishek Raja & Ors. vs Sanjay Gupta Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 19-06-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Pension and Gratuity
See all petitions in Workplace Harassment
See all petitions in Judgment by Ranjan Gogoi
See all petitions in Judgment by Navin Sinha
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments June 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category