Case at a glance: The Supreme Court has held that the power under Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists Act, 1955 to refer a dispute over amounts due to a newspaper employee to a Labour Court belongs to the State Government alone and could not be delegated. It upheld Bombay High Court rulings setting aside references made by delegated officers, but used Article 142 to save the pending proceedings by requiring Maharashtra to re-examine every such reference within six months.
By a notification of 11 May 2016, the Government of Maharashtra purported to delegate its Section 17(2) reference power to Additional and Deputy Commissioners of Labour. Newspaper employees, including those of Dainik Bhaskar and All India Reporter, had their claims referred to Labour Courts by these officers.
The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court on 17 November 2022 set aside a reference on that ground, and the Aurangabad Bench on 22 December 2022 followed it and set aside a Labour Court award of 4 January 2019 in a batch of petitions by Dainik Bhaskar. The employees and journalists’ unions appealed. The Act was repealed by the OSH Code, 2020 with effect from 21 November 2025.
The Key Question Before the Court
Could Maharashtra delegate its power under Section 17(2) to refer working journalists’ claims to a Labour Court, and what happens to references already made?
Silence on Delegation, and a Remedy Under Article 142
Reading Section 17 as one scheme, the Court noted that sub-section (1) expressly allows a ‘specified authority’ to issue recovery certificates while sub-section (2) is silent on delegation; applying the expressio unius principle, it held that “it is the State Government alone which can refer the matter to the Labour Court.” It distinguished Samarjit Ghosh v. Bennett Coleman, relied on Pradyot Kumar Bose and Sahni Silk Mills on the limits of delegation, and held that the beneficial character of the Act cannot override clear text. It affirmed the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s view in Jagran Prakashan and did not approve the Allahabad High Court’s view in Amar Ujala.
Since the references had been made under a notification that appeared valid at the time, the Court applied principles akin to ratification and invoked Article 142, distinguishing Marathwada University. Rather than let years of litigation collapse, it directed the State to apply its own mind to each reference.
What the Court Actually Held
- Section 17(2) does not permit delegation; the 2016 delegation was erroneous and the High Court judgments were affirmed.
- Pending proceedings and references do not terminate; the State must review each reference independently and record fresh satisfaction within six months.
- Where awards exist, the State must certify that the reference was rightly made before the High Court examines the award on merits; if not, the employee is to be informed and may pursue other remedies.
- Concluded proceedings are not reopened, and the merits of all claims are left open.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It settles a recurring question across States on delegated references under the Working Journalists Act.
- It shows how Article 142 can save proceedings built on an invalid delegation.
- It affects many pending wage claims by newspaper employees in Maharashtra.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Employees and Unions
- Track the State’s six-month review and seek recall or restoration of disposed matters where a proper reference is certified.
- Preserve records of each claim for the fresh satisfaction exercise.
For Employers
- Pending Labour Court and High Court proceedings are paused, not ended, until the State decides.
- Challenges on merits remain open after certification.
Key Takeaways
- The reference power under Section 17(2) is the State’s alone.
- The 2016 Maharashtra delegation was invalid.
- Article 142 saves pending references subject to fresh State review.
- The review must be completed within six months.
Frequently Asked Questions
No. Pending references survive, subject to the State recording its own satisfaction.
The State must certify that the reference was rightly made; the High Court can then examine the award on merits.
The Act was repealed by the OSH Code with effect from 21 November 2025; the Court dealt with references made under it.
Conclusion
The judgment combines a strict reading of the statute with a practical remedy that avoids penalising employees for the State’s error.
Practical takeaway: Parties to Maharashtra working journalist references should now engage with the State’s review, since proceedings will not move until it records fresh satisfaction.