Majithia Wage Board Case: Supreme Court Rules on Newspaper Employees’ Wage Dispute

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Avishek Raja & Ors. vs. Sanjay Gupta addresses the long-standing wage dispute concerning newspaper employees and the implementation of the Majithia Wage Board recommendations. The ruling, delivered on June 19, 2017, settles critical legal questions regarding fair wages, employer obligations, and enforcement mechanisms under the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955.

The case originated from contempt petitions filed by journalists and non-journalist newspaper employees who alleged that their employers had failed to implement the revised pay scales mandated by the Majithia Wage Board. Despite a 2014 Supreme Court ruling upholding the validity of the Wage Board’s recommendations, many media houses continued to resist compliance, leading to legal proceedings.

Background of the Case

The Majithia Wage Board was constituted in 2007 under the chairmanship of Justice G.R. Majithia to recommend fair wages for journalists and non-journalist employees in newspaper establishments. The board’s recommendations included:

• Classification of newspaper establishments based on revenue.
• Revised pay scales and allowances, including transport, housing, and dearness allowances.
• Arrears payable from July 1, 2010.
• Legal safeguards against arbitrary termination for employees seeking wage benefits.

The Central Government accepted these recommendations and notified them on November 11, 2011. However, many newspaper organizations challenged the Wage Board’s findings, arguing financial constraints. In 2014, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Wage Board’s recommendations but allowed limited exemptions for establishments facing severe financial distress.

Arguments by the Petitioners

The petitioners, a group of journalists and newspaper employees, contended:

• Employers had a legal obligation to implement the Majithia Wage Board recommendations.
• The failure to revise wages and pay arrears constituted a clear contempt of the Supreme Court’s 2014 ruling.
• Employees were coerced into signing undertakings waiving their right to higher wages.
• Retaliatory actions, including dismissals and transfers, were taken against employees who demanded fair wages.

Arguments by the Respondents

The newspaper establishments and employers argued:

• Many employees had voluntarily opted out of the revised pay scale.
• Contractual employees were not entitled to Wage Board benefits.
• Financial losses made it impossible to pay arrears and implement higher salaries.
• Contempt proceedings were not the appropriate legal remedy for wage disputes.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, while analyzing the case, observed:

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

Rejecting financial hardship as an excuse, the court stated:

“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.”

The court also ruled that any undertakings signed by employees under duress were legally invalid. It directed labor authorities to verify claims of coercion and wrongful terminations.

Implementation and Monitoring

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

• Ensuring that newspaper establishments implemented the wage revisions.
• Investigating claims of forced resignations or coerced wage waivers.
• Submitting reports on compliance to the Supreme Court.

The court clarified that disputes regarding arrears and wrongful dismissals should be handled by Labor Courts, as provided under the Act.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirmed the binding nature of the Majithia Wage Board recommendations and underscored employers’ obligations to comply with statutory wage revisions. By enforcing strict compliance measures, the ruling strengthens labor protections for journalists and non-journalist employees in the media industry.

This landmark judgment sets a precedent for future labor disputes, ensuring that employees in the newspaper industry receive fair wages as mandated by law.

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