Case Details: Express Publications (Madurai) (P.) Ltd. vs. D. Sundaresan [2026] 186 taxmann.com 305 (Madras)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- B. Pugalendhi, J.
-
M.E. Ilango for the Petitioner.
-
T. Sivakumar for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, the petitioner was a newspaper management, whereas the respondents were its former non-journalist newspaper employees. The Central Government had notified the recommendations of the Majithia Wage Board on 11.11.2011. The respondents, who were in service during the relevant period, claimed arrears of wages and other consequential benefits in terms of the notified rates and accordingly filed applications, which were referred by the State Government to the Labour Court under Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955.
The petitioner-management filed interlocutory applications raising preliminary objections, inter alia, contending that disputes relating to employees’ cadre/category, date of promotion, and nature of duties could not be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 17(2). It was further contended that the Wage Board recommendations did not constitute an award and did not create any pre-existing right in favour of the employees. According to the petitioner, disputes regarding entitlement, classification, or grade of employees required adjudication through a separate industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner also raised objections on the ground of delay and submitted that the employees had already been paid benefits at the time of superannuation.
The Labour Court rejected the preliminary objections and held that the notified Wage Board recommendations were enforceable and that issues incidental to implementation, including determination of cadre, grade, and nature of work, could be examined within proceedings under Section 17(2). The plea regarding delay was also rejected.
High Court Held
The High Court observed that the recommendations of the Wage Board, once notified by the Central Government and affirmed by the Supreme Court, constituted legally enforceable entitlements, and the employees were entitled to wages in accordance with such recommendations. The Court further held that the Labour Court was competent to determine issues relating to cadre, grade, and nature of duties while adjudicating applications under Section 17(2).
Accordingly, the High Court held that the Labour Court had valid jurisdiction to entertain and decide the claims of the respondents/employees as well as the objections raised by the petitioner-management under Section 17(2). Finding no infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Labour Court, the High Court dismissed all the writ petitions.
List of Cases Reviewed
- ABP Private Limited v. Union of India (2014) 3 SCC 327 (para 13)
- Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar (2015) 11 SCC 204 (para 14)
- All India Reporter Karamchari Sangh v. All India Reporter Limited AIR 1988 SC 1325 (para 22)
- Central Bank of India Ltd. v. P. S. Rajagopalan AIR 1964 SC 743, Avishek Raja v. Sanjay Gupta (2017) 8 SCC 435 (para 23) followed
List of Cases Referred to
- K. S. Natrajan v. Presiding Officer [W.P. No. 23929 of 2006, dated 9-2-2010] (para 5)
- Keshavlal M Rao v. State of Gujarat (1993) 1 GLR 1 (para 5)
- Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity and Distribution Corporation Limited, Tiruvannamalai Electricity Distribution Circle v. N.Venkatachalam 2020 III LLJ 523 (Mad) (para 5)
- Avishek Raja v. Sanjay Gupta (2017) 8 SCC 435 (para 7)
- ABP Private Limited v. Union of India (2014) 3 SCC 327 (para 7)
- Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar (2015) 11 SCC 204 (para 14)
- All India Reporter Karamchari Sangh v. All India Reporter Limited AIR 1988 SC 1325 (para 22)
- Central Bank of India Ltd. v. P. S. Rajagopalan AIR 1964 SC 743 (para 22).
The post Labour Court Can Determine Grade Under Majithia Wage Board | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
