Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd. vs Ravi Jaiswal

By this common order, MP No. 1116/2019 and MP No.1093/2019 involving the same question of fact and law shall be also disposed of. For the sake of convenience, the facts of MP 1112 of 2019 shall be referred.

MP 1112/2019 has been filed against the order dated 06th February, 2019 passed in Case No.81A/ID Act/2017 by Labour Court, No.1, Gwalior, whereas MP No.1116/2019 has been filed against the order dated 06th February, 2019 passed in Case No.47-A/ID Act/2017 by Labour Court, No.1, Gwalior and MP No.1093/2019 has been filed against the order dated 06th February, 2019 passed in Case No.84-A/ID Act/2017 by Labour Court, No.1, Gwalior.

The necessary facts for the disposal of these petitions in short are that the respondent(s) filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 [in short '' the Act, 1955''] before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Gwalior, alleging that he is entitled to receive the benefits of wage revision as provided under the recommendations of Majithia Wage Board. Later on, the dispute was sent to Deputy Labour Commissioner, Bhopal by Assistant Labour Commissioner, Gwalior. A show cause notice dated 06th June, 2017 was issued by Deputy Labour Commissioner, Bhopal. The petitioner submitted its objections. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Bhopal was having only the authority of conciliation and as he was not having any adjudicatory power, therefore, the respondent filed a claim of settlement before Labour Court, No.1, Gwalior claiming revision of wages. The petitioner filed its written statement to the statement of claim and stated that the respondent does not fall within the category of ''employee'' as defined under the Act, 1955 and denied the averments made in statement of claim. The respondent submitted its affidavit on 30th July, 2018. Thereafter, the respondent filed certain documents along with application dated 04th October, 2018 including the recommendations of Majithia Wage Board. The said documents were taken on record by the Labour Court. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner also sought permission to file certain documents in response to the documents filed by the respondent but by the impugned order dated 6th February, 2019, the Labour Court has refused to take the documents of the petitioner on record, against which the present petition has been filed.

Challenging the order dated 6th February, 2019, passed by the Labour Court, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that for the purposes of fixation or revision of rates of wages of Working Journalists and Non- Journalists Newspaper Employees, the newspaper establishment has been classified, which is based on the average gross income of three accounting years. Thus, the gross income of the newspaper establishment is a crucial document for fixation or revision of rates of wages. The petitioner has sought permission to place the balance-sheet on record which has been denied by the Court below by order dated 6th February, 2019. Furthermore, the petitioner has sought permission to file certain registration documents to show that the newspaper establishment in question is a separate and independent unit. Thus, it is submitted that for the purposes of adjudication of the lis, the documents which are sought to be filed by the petitioner, are relevant and the Court below has committed a material illegality by not taking the documents on record.

Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent that so far as the documents which are sought to be filed by the petitioner are concerned, they have no relevance because as per the recommendations of Majithia Wage Board, if there are different units/ branches/Companies of one classified newspaper establishment in one town/city and adjoining areas, even though carrying different names, these will be treated as one single unit of that newspaper establishment. In the present case, it is clear from the registration documents itself that the registered office is at Jaipur and the petitioner has not filed the balance-sheets of the entire establishment and they are trying to project that the office/establishment at Gwalior is a separate unit and, therefore, the balance-sheet filed by the petitioner has no relevance and thus, the Court below has not committed any mistake in refusing to take the documents on record.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC deals with the situation where the documents are sought to be filed at a later stage. The question for consideration is that whether the Court while considering the prayer under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC, can look into the merits of the documents or is merely required to consider that whether those documents are relevant for adjudication of the lis or not. It is true that a completely irrelevant document cannot be allowed to be filed under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC. A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mahavir Prasad Jain vs. Sambhoo Kuchabandiya, reported in 2005 (1) MPWN [76] has held as under:-

'' Having heard learned counsel and perusal of the record, it is seen that under order 7 Rule 14(3) power is vested in the Court to grant relief to receive in evidence any document which is not produced or filed by the plaintiff along with plaint. This power has to be exercised judicially for the purpose if advancing the course of justice, it is not to be used in such a manner so as to cause injustice to any of the parties. In the opinion of this Court the learned Court below has not exercised its power after considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and merely on the ground that the document as available when written statement was filed by the defendant and on the ground of delay, application has been rejected. Immediately after issues were framed petitioner had filed application for taking document on record. The reason for not filing the same in the year 1966 along with plaint is also reasonably explained by the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that he could not produce the document earlier and was required to file the same in view of the objections raised by the respondent in his written statement of the time of filing of the suit.

As far as the grounds for rejecting application on considering the fact that particulars of the land mentioned in the document and in the plaint are different, the same has to be considered after recording of the evidence.

Accordingly, rejection of the document on the grounds mentioned in the order is clearly unsustainable.''

Thus, the only question for consideration is that whether the documents sought to be filed by the petitioner are relevant for adjudication of the lis or not ?

The Majithia Wage Board had submitted its recommendations which have been accepted by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment. ''Gross revenue'' has been defined in Clause 2(5) of the recommendations of Majithia Wage Board Award,which reads as under:-

''Clause 2(5) ''Gross Revenue'' of a newspaper establishment (other than news agency) means the total revenue derived by the establishment from all sources of its newspaper business, including circulation and advertisement in its newspaper or newspapers, and also include the income from the assets acquired and investments made by it out of funds earned in the newspaper business.''

Clause 3 of the recommendations deals with the classification of newspaper establishments, which reads as under:-

''3. Classification of newspaper Establishments:- For the purpose of fixation or revision of rates of wages in respect of working journalists and non-journalists employees (other than the news agencies), the newspaper establishments shall be classified hereinafter provided.

****** ******

Explanation- for the purpose of this clause,

(a) If there are different units/ branches/ companies of one classified newspaper establishment in one town or city and adjoining areas, even though carrying different names, these will be treated as one single unit of that newspaper establishment.

(b) in the case of a newspaper establishment completing two out of the aforementioned three(3) accounting years, its classification shall be determined on the basis of its average gross revenue for those two years.

(c) In the case of a newspaper establishment which has completed only one year of the said accounting years, its classification shall be determined on the basis of its gross revenue for that year.

(d) A new newspaper establishment, for which the provisions of clauses (a),

(b) and (c) above do not apply, is liable to be classified after the completion of its first accounting year on the basis of its gross revenue for that year.''

Clause 6 deals with the classification of news agency.

As per clause 3 of the Majithia Wage Board Award, for the purposes of fixation or revision of rates of wages in respect of Working Journalists and Non-Journalists  Newspaper Employees, the newspaper establishments are required to be classified and for the said purposes, the classification of newspaper establishment shall be on the basis of average gross revenue in three accounting years. Thus, for fixation or revision of rates of wages, the average gross revenue of three accounting years of the newspaper establishment is relevant. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the balance-sheet filed by the petitioner is relevant for adjudication of the lis.

So far as the contention of the respondent that the petitioner by filing several registration documents has tried to show that the petitioner at Gwalior is a separate establishment and, therefore, it has filed the balance-sheet of Gwalior Establishment only but in fact, in view of explanation given to Clause (3) of the recommendations of Majithia Wage Board Award, the different units/ branches/ companies of one classified newspaper establishment in one town or city and adjoining areas has to be treated as one single unit. From the documents of registration, it is clear that the registered office of the petitioner is at Jaipur and in fact, the petitioner should have filed the balance-sheets of all the establishments because they are treated to be one unit.

So far as the submission made by the counsel for the respondent that the balance-sheet of Gwalior establishment is not sufficient and the petitioner should have filed the balance-sheets of all the branches/offices because they are owned by one proprietor and is one establishment is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that at this stage, this question is not the subject-matter of this petition. At this stage, this Court is required to consider the relevancy of the documents which are sought to be filed by the petitioner. Whether the establishment of the petitioner at Gwalior has to be treated as a separate unit or it has to be treated as part of one unit, is a question which is yet to be decided by the Labour Court. The apprehension expressed by the respondents that in case if the balance-sheet filed by the petitioner is taken on record, then the petitioner may argue that since the balance-sheet of Gwalior has been allowed to be filed and therefore the petitioner has to be treated at Gwalior as an independent unit is concerned, the said apprehension is misconceived. At the time of considering the prayer under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC, the Court is not required to consider the merits of the documents. The Court is merely required to consider the relevancy of those documents. One thing is clear that the gross revenue or gross income of the newspaper establishment is relevant for the purpose of fixation or revision of wages. Thus, it cannot be said that the balance sheet which has been filed by the petitioner is completely irrelevant. Whether the petitioner must file the balance-sheet of the entire establishments including that of the registered office at Jaipur or whether the establishment at Gwalior has to be treated as a separate independent establishment, is a question which has to be decided by the Labour Court. Merely because some documents are taken on record would not ipso facto mean that this Court has considered the merits of those documents.

Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the documents which are sought to be filed by the petitioner are relevant and, therefore, the Court below has committed a material illegality by refusing to take those documents on record. Accordingly, the documents filed by the petitioner are taken on record. However, by way of caution, it is once again clarified that merely because the documents have been taken on record does not mean this Court has accepted that the petitioner (Gwalior Establishment) is an independent newspaper establishment. The Labour Court is still required to consider and decide that whether Gwalior Establishment of the petitioner is a separate independent unit or it is a part of the main unit functioning from its registered office.

With the aforesaid observation, the order dated 06th February, 2019 passed in Case No.81A/ID Act/2017 by Labour Court, No.1, Gwalior, the order dated 06th February, 2019 passed in Case No.47-A/ID Act/2017 by Labour Court, No.1, Gwalior and the order dated 06th February, 2019 passed in Case No.84-A/ID Act/2017 by Labour Court, No.1, Gwalior are hereby set aside.

Petitions succeed and are hereby allowed.