-1-

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

WPL No. 3 of 2024

Nai Dunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited Through Aut horized Signatory,

Pushpendra Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh, Age 57 Years Office 3rd Floor Krishna

Glory Complex, Sainagar, Nr. Hotel Babylon Inn. Jail Road, Raipur 492001 (C.G.)

---- Petitioner

Versus

Hemlal Sahu S/o Shri Arjun Singh Sahu, R/o Mathpara, Birgaon, Vinod Kirana Store Ke

Pass, District Raipur (C.G.)

---- Respondent

AND

WPL No. 7 of 2024

Nai Dunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited Through Aut horized Signatory,

Pushpendra Singh, S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh Age 57 Years Office 3rd Floor Krishna

Glory Complex, Sainagar, Nr. Hotel Babylon Inn. Jail Road, Raipur 492001 (C.G.)

---- Petitioner

Versus

Ishwar Kumar Nishad S/o Shri Motiram Nishad R/o Gram Kurud, P.O. Silyari, District

Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondent

AND

WPL No. 9 of 2024

Nai Dunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited Through Aut horized Signatory,

Pushpendra Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh Aged 57 Year Office -3rd Floor Krishna

Glory Complex, Sainagar, Nr. Hotel Babylon Inn, Jai Ro ad, Raipur 492001

Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

Dhananjay Pandey S/o Shri Rameshwar Pandey, R/o Ward No. 12, Vivekanand Nagar,

Bavbrad Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent

AND

WPL No. 11 of 2024

Nai Dunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited, Through Authorized Signatory,

Pushpendra Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh Age--57 Years Office -3rd Floor Krishna

Glory Complex, Sainagar, Nr. Hotel Babylon Inn, Jail Road, Raipur -492001 2024:CGHC:15840

Neutral Citation

-2-

Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioner

Versus

Nasim Mohammad S/o Shri Haseem Mohammad, R/o M.N. 786/92, Go siya Chowk,

Dhoobi Gali, Selani Pan Palace, Sanjay Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent

AND

WPL No. 12 of 2024

Nai Dunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited Through Aut horized Signatory,

Pushpendra Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh Age 57 Years Office- 3rd Floor Krishna

Glory Complex, Sainagar, Nr. Hotel Babylon Inn, Jail Road, Raipur - 492001 (C.G.)

---- Petitioner

Versus

Gangesh Kumar Dwivedi S/o Shri Dayanand Dwivedi R/o Housing Board Colony, J-

680, Tilak Nagar Gudiyari, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent

AND

WPL No. 13 of 2024

Nai Dunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited Through Aut horized Signatory,

Pushpendra Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh Age 57 Years Office- 3rd Floor Krishna

Glory Complex, Sainagar, Nr. Hotel Babylon Inn, Jail Road, Raipur - 492001 (C.G.)

---- Petitioner

Versus

Gokul Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Janak Sahu R/o Mowa, Kanpa Basti, Satnaam Bhavan Ke

Phiche, Ratan Kirana Dukaan Ke Pass, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent

AND

WPL No. 14 of 2024

Nai Dunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited Through Aut horized Signatory,

Pushpendra Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh Age 57 Years, Office 3rd Floor Krishna

Glory Complex, Sainagar, Nr. Hotel Babylon Inn. Jail Road, Raipur 492001 (C.G.)

---- Petitioner

Versus 2024:CGHC:15840

Neutral Citation

-3-

Narendra Bangale S/o Shri Madhukar Bangale R/o 20-B, Housing Board Colony Kota,

Pani Ki Tanki Ke Pass, District Raipur (C.G.)

---- Respondent

AND

WPL No. 15 of 2024

Nai Dunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited Through Aut horized Signatory,

Pushpendra Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh Aged -57 Years Office -3rd Floor Krishna

Glory Complex, Sainagar Nr. Hotel Babylon Inn, Jail Road, Raipur - 492001

Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

Ajay Kumar Saxena S/o Shri Surendra Kumar Saxena, M.N. C-73, Gayatri Nagar,

Raipur P. Shankar Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent

AND

WPL No. 17 of 2024

Nai Dunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited Through Aut horized Signatory,

Pushpendra Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh, Age 57 Years Office 3rd Floor Krishna

Glory Complex, Sainagar, Nr. Hotel Babylon Inn, Jail Road, Raipur 492001 (C.G.)

---- Petitioner

Versus

Omprakash Dubey S/o Shri Jwalaprasad Dubey Ward No. 32, Nagar Palika Nigam Ke

Paas, Nageshwar Nagar, Birgaon, District Raipur (C.G.)

---- Respondent

AND

WPL No. 21 of 2024

Nai Dunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited Through - Authorized Signatory,

Pushpendra Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh Age-57 Years Office-3rd Floor Krishna

Glory Complex, Sainagar, Nr. Hotel Babylon Inn. Jail Road, Raipur - 492001 (C.G.)

---- Petitioner

Versus

Chintamani Sahu S/o Shri Ramkishun Sahu Residence Of Gram Semaria, Anand Marg

School Ke Piche, P.O. Nardaha, District Raipur (C.G.)

---- Respondent 2024:CGHC:15840

Neutral Citation

-4-

AND

WPL No. 22 of 2024

Nai Dunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited Through - Authorized Signatory,

Pushpendra Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh Aged - 57 Years Office - 3rd Floor Krishna

Glory Complex, Sainagar, Nr. Hotel Babylon Inn. Jail Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

492001.

---- Petitioner

Versus

Santosh Singh S/o Shri Kailash Singh Residence Of Durdarshan Kendra Ke Phiche,

Aganwadi Ke Pass, Dharampura No. 01, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent

AND

WPL No. 23 of 2024

Nai Dunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited Through - Authorized Signatory,

Pushpendra Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh Aged - 57 Years Office - 3rd Floor Krishna

Glory Complex, Sainagar, Nr. Hotel Babylon Inn. Jail Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

492001.

---- Petitioner

Versus

Praful Kumar Masih S/o Shri Prem Kumar Masih, Residence Of 574, Aadarsh Chowk,

May Dental Clinic Ke Samne, Rajatalab, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent

AND

WPL No. 27 of 2024

Nai Dunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited, Through Authorized Signatory,

Pushpendra Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh Age 57 Years, Office 3rd Floor Krishna

Glory Complex, Sainagar, Nr. Hotel Babylon Inn, Jail Road, Raipur 492001 (C.G.)

---- Petitioner

Versus

Satish Kumar Sandilya S/o Shri Mohbu Singh Sandilya R/o Gram Pandrabhata, P.O.

Kura, District Raipur (C.G.)

---- Respondent

AND

WPL No. 40 of 2024 2024:CGHC:15840

Neutral Citation

-5-

Nai Dunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited Through Aut horized Signatory,

Pushpendra Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh Age 57 Years, Office 3rd Floor Krishna

Glory Complex, Sainagar, Nr. Hotel Babylon Inn, Jail Road Raipur, 492001 (C.G.)

---- Petitioner

Versus

Deepak Pandey S/o Late Shri Arun Kumar Pandey R/o Baj arpara, Bakavand,

Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.)

---- Respondent

AND

WPL No. 55 of 2024

Nai Dunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited Through Aut horized Signatory,

Pushpendra Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh Age-57 Years Office -3rd Floor Krishna

Glory Complex, Sainagar, Nr. Hotel Babylon Inn, Jail Road, Raipur-492001, C.G.

---- Petitioner

Versus

Shriram Sinha S/o Shri Shriram Prasad Sinha Residence Of Block No. 30, B.S.U.P.

Housing Board, Kachna, Saddu, Raipur, C.G.

---- Respondent

AND

WPL No. 56 of 2024

Nai Dunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited Authorized Singnatory, Pushpendra

Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh Age - 57 Years, Office -3rd Floor Krishna Glory

Complex, Sainagar, Nr. Hotel Babylon Inn, Jail Road, Raipur - 492001, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

Danish Anwar S/o Anwar Ahmed Residence Of 539, Rajeev Bhavan, Brahamanpara,

Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent

AND

WPL No. 57 of 2024

Nai Dunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited Through Aut horized Signatory,

Pushpendra Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh Age 57 Years Office- 3rd Floor Krishna

Glory Complex, Sainagar, Nr. Hotel Babylon Inn. Jail Road, Raipur - 492001 (C.G.)

---- Petitioner 2024:CGHC:15840

Neutral Citation

-6-

Versus

Yogendra Thakur S/o Late Shri K.S. Thakur R/o Lohar Gali, Balaji Ward, Jagadalpur,

District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent

AND

WPL No. 59 of 2024

Nai Dunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited Through Aut horized Signatory,

Pushpendra Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh Age-57 Years Office-3rd Floor Krishna

Glory Complex, Sainagar, Nr. Hotel Babylon Inn. Jail Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.-

492001

---- Petitioner

Versus

Lalit Kumar S/o Shri Jhumuk Lal Residence Of House No. 38 Bazar Chowk Talab Ke

Pass, Goodhi Bhatapara, Singarpur, District- Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent

AND

WPL No. 60 of 2024

Nai Dunia A Unit Of Jargran Prakashan Limited Authorized Singnatory, Pushpendra

Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh Age - 57 Years, Office -3rd Floor Krishna Glory

Complex, Sainagar, Nr. Hotel Babylon Inn, Jail Road, Raipur - 492001, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

Shyamji Tiwari S/o Shri Laxmi Prasad Tiwari Residence Of M.No. 507, Ward No. 10,

Sai Mandir, Moti Chowk, Shankar Nagar, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent

AND

WPL No. 61 of 2024

Nai Dunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited Through Authorized Singnatory,

Pushpendra Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh Age - 57 Years, Office -3rd Floor Krishna

Glory Complex, Sainagar, Nr. Hotel Babylon Inn, Jail Road, Raipur - 492001,

Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

Bhanwarlal Bothra S/o Late Shri Mangilal Bothra Residence Of Pankaj Printers, Main 2024:CGHC:15840

Neutral Citation

-7-

Road, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent

AND

WPL No. 62 of 2024

Nai Dunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited, Through Authorized Signatory,

Pushpendra Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh Age-57 Years Office- 3rd Flood Krishna

Glory Complex, Sainagar, Nr. Hotel Babylon Inn, Jail Road, Raipur-492001, C.G.

---- Petitioner

Versus

Mukesh Kumar Verma S/o Shri Gajadhar Singh Verma Residence Of Ward No. 3,

Akhara Bhatapara, P.O. Patan, District Durg, C.G.

---- Respondent

AND

WPL No. 64 of 2024

Nai Dunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited Through Aut horized Signatory,

Pushpendra Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh Age-57 Years Office -3rd Floor Krishna

Glory Complex, Sainagar, Nr. Hotel Babylon Inn, Jail Road, Raipur-492001, C.G.

---- Petitioner

Versus

Mayur Malhar Bakshi S/o Shri Shri M. R. Bakshi Residence Of M. N. 217, National

Convent School Ke Piche, Under Nagar, Dist. Raipur, C.G.

---- Respondent

AND

WPL No. 65 of 2024

Nai Dunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited Through Aut horized Signatory,

Pushpendra Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh Age 57 Years Office- 3rd Floor Krishna

Glory Complex, Sainagar, Nr. Hotel Babylon Inn. Jail Road, Raipur - 492001 (C.G.)

---- Petitioner

Versus

Ghanshyam Gupta S/o Late Shri Narayan Prasad Gupta R/o 38/203, Hanuman Mandir

Ke Piche Tatyapara, Raipur (C.G.)

---- Respondent

AND 2024:CGHC:15840

Neutral Citation

-8-

WPL No. 67 of 2024

Nai Dunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited Through Aut horized Signatory,

Pushpendra Singh, S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh Age 57 Years Office 3rd Floor Krishna

Glory Complex, Sainagar, Nr. Hotel Babhlon Inn. Jail Road, Raipur 492001 (C.G.)

---- Petitioner

Versus

Sameer Sen S/o Shri Sunil Kanti Sen R/o Matrisangh Kumharpara, District Jagdalpur

(C.G.)

---- Respondent

AND

WPL No. 68 of 2024

Nai Dunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited Through Aut horized Signatory

Pushpendra Singh, S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh, Age - 57 Years , Office - 3rd Floor Krishna

Glory Complex, Sainagar, Nr. Hotel Babylon Inn, Jail Road, Raipur - 492001,

Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

Mukesh Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Loknath Sahu R/o L.I.G. 558, Sector 4, Housing

Board Colony, Saddu, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent

AND

WPL No. 69 of 2024

Nai Dunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited Through- Authorized Signatory,

Pushpendra Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh, Aged 57 Years, Office-3rd, Floor Krishna

Glory Gomplex, Sainagar, Nr. Hotel Babylon Inn, Jail Road, Raipur, Raipur- 492001

(Cg)

---- Petitioner

Versus

Pramesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Nenuram Sahu, Residence Of Gram Evam P.O.-

Devartilda, Thana-Kharora, District Raipur (Cg)

---- Respondent

AND

WPL No. 70 of 2024

Nai Dunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited Through Aut horized Signatory, 2024:CGHC:15840

Neutral Citation

-9-

Pushpendra Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh, Age - 57 Years Office - 3rd Floor Krishna

Glory Complex, Sainagar, Nr. Hotel Babylon Inn, Jail Road, Raipur - 492001,

Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

Chova Ram Verma S/o Shri Keju Ram Verma R/o Mathpara, Urkura, P.O. Beergaon,

District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent

AND

WPL No. 71 of 2024

Nai Duniya A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited Through Authorized Signatory,

Pushpendra Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh Age-57 Year Office -3rd Floor Krishna

Glory Complex, Sainagar, Nr. Hotel Babylon Inn. Jail Road, Raipur -492001

Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

Santosh Yadav S/o Late Shri Sakharam Yadav R/o Lakhenagar, Goutam Nagar, Nagrik

Kalyan Samiti Ke Samne, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent

AND

WPL No. 72 of 2024

Nai Dunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited Through Aut horized Signatory,

Pushpendra Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh Age 57 Years Office -3rd Floor Krishna

Glory Complex, Sainagar, Nr. Hotel Babylon Inn, Jail Road, Raipur-492001,

Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioner

Versus

Basant Dahiya S/o Shri Bhejrao Dahiya R/o Sadar Ward S.B.I. Ke Piche, Dharmshala

Gali, Jagdalpur, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent

AND

WPL No. 74 of 2024

Nai Dunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited Authorized Singnatory, Pushpendra

Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh Age - 57 Years, Office -3rd Floor Krishna Glory

Complex, Sainagar, Nr. Hotel Babylon Inn, Jail Road, Raipur - 492001, Chhattisgarh. 2024:CGHC:15840

Neutral Citation

-10-

---- Petitioner

Versus

Mohd. Shah S/o Marhum Zahur Ahmed Residence Of Mohd. Shah (Patrakar) Shashkiy

Prathmik School Ke Samen, Nvagaon Ward, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. Pin Code 493

773, Thana City Kotwali, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent

AND

WPL No. 76 of 2024

Nai Duni A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited, Authorized Singnatory, Pushpendra

Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh Age - 57 Years, Office -3rd Floor Krishna Glory

Complex, Sainagar, Nr. Hotel Babylon Inn, Jail Road, Raipur - 492001, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

Purnachandra Rath S/o Late Shri S.N. Rath Residence Of B-6, Sales Tax Colony,

Khamardih, Shankar Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent

AND

WPL No. 78 of 2024

Nai Dunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited Through Aut horized Signatory,

Pushpendra Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh Age-57 Years Office-3rd Floor Krishna

Glory Complex, Sainagar, Nr. Hotel Babylon Inn. Jail Road Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pin-

492001

---- Petitioner

Versus

Satish Kumar Verma S/o Shri Devendra Kumar Verma R/o Gajana nd Mandir Ke

Pichhe, Tatyapra, Chowk, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent

AND

WPL No. 79 of 2024

Nai Dunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited Through Aut horized Signatory,

Pushpendra Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh Age-57 Years Office- 3rd Floor Krishna

Glory Complex, Sainagar, Nr. Hotel Babylon Inn. Jail Road Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pin-

492001.

---- Petitioner 2024:CGHC:15840

Neutral Citation

-11-

Versus

Dinesh Kumar Uikay S/o Shri P.R. Uikay R/o Harshit Vihar, Urkura P.O. Beergoan,

District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent

AND

WPL No. 84 of 2024

Nai Dunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited Through Aut horized Signatory

Singnatory, Pushpendra Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh Aged-57 Years Office- 3rd

Floor Krishna Glory Complex, Sainagar, Nr. Hotel Babylon Inn, Jail Road Raipur,

Chhattisgarh. 492001

---- Petitioner

Versus

Lokesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Shivkumar Sahu R/o Gram Post Ta rsiva, Dhamtari,

Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent

AND

WPL No. 85 of 2024

Nai Dunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited Through Aut horized Signatory,

Pushpendra Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh Age-57 Years Office- 3rd Floor Krishna

Glory Complex, Sainagar, Nr. Hotel Babylon Inn, Jail Road, Raipur-492001, C.G.

---- Petitioner

Versus

Shiv Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Babu Ram Sahu Resident Of Shiv Nagar, Chouhan Kirana

Dukan, Shitala Mandir, Ke Paas, Rama Tailer, New Changorabhata, Dist. Raipur, C.G.

---- Respondent

AND

WPL No. 86 of 2024

Nai Dunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited Authorized Singnatory, Pushpendra

Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh Age - 57 Years, Office -3rd Floor Krishna Glory

Complex, Sainagar, Nr. Hotel Babylon Inn, Jail Road, Raipur - 492001, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

Kunal Dutt Mishra S/o Shri Dilip Kumar Mishra Residence Of Bees Pani Tanki Ke Paas,

Mahadev Ghat Se Bhathagaon Road, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2024:CGHC:15840

Neutral Citation

-12-

---- Respondent

AND

WPL No. 87 of 2024

Nai Dunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited Through Aut horized Signatory,

Pushpendra Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh, Age 57 Years, Office- 3rd Floor Krishna

Glory Complex, Sainagar, Nr. Hotel Babylon Inn, Jail Road, Raipur, District : Raipur,

Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioner

Versus

Virendra Kumar Sharma S/o Rambishal Sharma R/o Shanti Vihar Colony, Dangniya,

District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent

AND

WPL No. 88 of 2024

Nai Duniya A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited Through Authorized Signatory,

Pushpendra Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh Aged -57 Years Office- 3rd Floor Krishna

Glory Complex, Sainagar, Nr. Hotel Babylon Inn, Jail Road, Raipur - 492001

Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

Govind Prasad Chadhar S/o Shri Amol Singh Cha dhar R/o Gram Karaiya, P.O. Bilani,

Thana Pathriya District Damoh (Mp)

---- Respondent

AND

WPL No. 89 of 2024

Nai Dunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited, Through Authorized Signatory,

Pushpendra Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh, Age-57 Years, Office-3rd Floor Krishna

Glory Complex, Sainagar, Nr. Hote Babylon Inn, Jail Road, Raipur-492001 (C.G.)

---- Petitioner

Versus

Mohd. Imran Khan S/o Shri Mohd. Umar Khan, Resident Of Nag Patwari Ke Ghar Ke

Paas, Banglapara, District-Narayanpur (Cg)

---- Respondent

AND 2024:CGHC:15840

Neutral Citation

-13-

WPL No. 90 of 2024

Nai Dunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited Authorized Singnatory, Pushpendra

Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh Age - 57 Years, Office -3rd Floor Krishna Glory

Complex, Sainagar, Nr. Hotel Babylon Inn, Jail Road, Raipur - 492001, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

Ved Prakash Tripathi S/o Shri Ramkalp Tripathi Residence Of Machhi Talab, Santoshi

Mandir Ke Paas, Gudiyari, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent

AND

WPL No. 91 of 2024

Nai Dunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited Through Aut horized Signatory,

Pushpendra Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh Age-57 Years Office- 3rd Floor Krishna

Glory Complex, Sainagar, Nr. Hotel Babylon Inn, Jail Road, Raipur-492001, C.G.

---- Petitioner

Versus

Gopal Soni S/o Shri Ghanshyamlal Soni Resident Of Shahid Bhagat Singh Chowk,

Shanti Nagar Udyan Ke Samne, Dist. Raipur, C.G.

---- Respondent

AND

WPL No. 93 of 2024

Nai Dunia A Unit Of Jagran Prakashan Limited Through Aut horized Signatory,

Pushpendra Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh Age-57 Years Office- 3rd Floor Krishna

Glory Complex, Sainagar, Nr. Hotel Babylon Inn, Jail Road, Raipur-492001, C.G.

---- Petitioner

Versus

Dinesh Kumar Verma S/o Late Shri Rajkumar Verma S/o Shri G ajadhar Verma,

Residence Of Third Floor, Krishna Glory, Complex, Sai Nagar, District - Durg,

Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Girish Patwardhan, Senior Advocate,

Mr. Manoj Dubey, Advocate, & 2024:CGHC:15840

Neutral Citation

-14-

Mr. Manay Nath Thakur, Advocate

For Respondents : Mr. Vikash Dubey, Advocates

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

02.05.2024

1)Since a common question of law and facts is involved in these petitions,

therefore, they are clubbed together, heard together and decided finally by

this common order.

2)Facts of the present case are as follows:-

A.The petitioner is a newspaper establishment situated in Raipur,

engaged in the printing and publishing of newspapers in the

name and style of ‘Naidunyia’. It is a unit of Jagran Prakashan

Limited (hereinafter referred to as “JPL.").

B.The effective date of demerger of Nai Duniya is 01.04.2012. The

petitioner is governed by provisions of Working Journalists and

Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and

Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as

“Act of 1955”).

C. Under the provisions of the Act of 1955, the Central

Government constituted a Wage Board in the name of Majithia

Wage Board (hereinafter referred to as “Wage Board”), which

made its recommendation to fix/revise rates of wages for

Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees in the

newspaper establishments. The judgments regarding the

demerger were passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh,

(Indore Bench) in Company Petition No. 24 of 2012 decided on

16.01.2013 and by the High Court of Allahabad in Company

Petition No. 30 of 2012 delivered on 29.01.2013.

D.The scheme of arrangement between Nai Duniya and JPL was

filed in Company Petition No. 24 of 2012 before the High Court

of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore.

E.The petitioner took liability and assets into account in the

audited balance sheet for the financial year ending on 2024:CGHC:15840

Neutral Citation

-15-

31.03.2012 and the same was approved by the High Court of

Allahabad.

F.The recommendation of the Wage Board was accepted by the

Central Government on 25.10.2011 and notified vide S.O. No.

2532 (E) dated 11.11.2011 in the Gazette of India.

G.Section 13 (A) of the Act of 1955 deals with the “Power of

Government to fix interim rates of wages”. The notification

remained in force until the order of the Central Government

under Section 12 of the Act of 1955 came into operation.

H.According to the scheme of the arrangement annexed to the

judgment passed by the High Court of Allahabad, the petitioner

had to provide employment to all existing employees of the

company on the same terms and conditions.

I. On the date of acceptance of the recommendation of the Wage

Board, the petitioner was the owner of the newspape r

establishment at Raipur. The respondents claim to be

employees of the Nai Duniya, Raipur newspaper establishment

and further claim to be eligible for the revised grade in

accordance with the recommendation of the Wage Board. They

moved an application under Section 17 (1) of the Act of

1955 before the Labour Commissioner, Raipur for the recovery

of arrears of un-deducted and unsettled amounts,

and difference of wages as per the Wage Board

recommendations.

J. It is claimed in the applications that the Nai Duniya is a Class-I

category newspaper as per the claim sheet. They claimed the

amount for a certain period and the respondents enclosed

Form-C along with the calculation sheet.

K.The Labour Commissioner issued notice to the petitioner and

thereafter the reply was filed.

L.The Petitioner stated in the reply that the respondents are not

entitled to claim any amount on the strength of the Wage

Board’s recommendation and their claims are contrary to the

provisions of the Act and Rules. 2024:CGHC:15840

Neutral Citation

-16-

M.The learned Labour Commissioner, Raipur commenced the

conciliation proceedings and thereafter the failure report under

Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was submitted

to the Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur.

N. Under Secretary to the Labour Department referred the dispute

of entitlement of amount and all the claims of the respondents

under Section 17(2) of the Act of 1955 and Sections 10 (1)(C) &

12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

O.The learned Labour Court, Raipur on receipt of the reference of

Under Secretary registered the matter as a reference case No.

82/Ref/17 and issued notice to the petitioner. The petitioner filed

its detailed written statement and preliminary objections.

P.The respondents in the pending reference cases moved an

application under Order 11 and Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure

Code (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the CPC’) seeking production

of certain documents.

Q.The respondents sought a copy of the agreement regarding the

takeover of the Nai Duniya newspaper by JPL, the annual

report submitted by Nai Duniya Media Ltd. for the years 2010-

2011 and, 2011–2012 to the Union of India, Ministry of

Company Affairs and turnover of JPL for the year 2011-2012

and 2012-2013.

R.The petitioner in respective cases filed the reply and denied the

contention of the respondents. It is stated by the petitioner that

the first document sought by the respondents was already

produced before the High Courts of Allahabad and Madhya

Pradesh.

S.With regard to the second document, it is stated that Nai Duniya

Media Ltd. is a separate entity, which has not been arrayed as a

party in the matter before the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh

and Allahabad. It is also stated that the document so sought for,

can be obtained from the Nai Duniya Media Limited.

T.With regard to the third document, it is stated that the document

so sought is not relevant. 2024:CGHC:15840

Neutral Citation

-17-

U.The learned Labour Court vide order dated 12.09.2023 allowed

the applications moved by the respondents and the petitioner

was directed to produce those documents by the next date of

hearing. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred these petitions

against the order(s) passed by the learned Labour Court dated

12.09.2023.

3)Mr. Girish Patwardhan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the

petitioner submitted as under:-

A.The respondents are not entitled to receive any amount under

the Wage Board recommendations constituted under the Act of

1955.

B.It is argued that as per the Wage Board’s recommendation, for

classification of newspaper, Section-II of Clause 3 will be taken

into consideration for the purpose of fixation and revision of rates

of wages in respect of working journalist and non-journalist

newspaper employees.

C.The classification of newspapers will be based on the average

gross revenue of three (3) accounting years i.e. 2007–2008,

2008–2009 and 2009–2010.

D.It is further argued that there is no agreement regarding takeover

or demerger and said transactions are based upon the judgment

passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 16.01.2013

in Company Petition No. 24 of 2012 and the final judgment

pronounced by the High Court of Allahabad in Company Petition

No. 30 of 2012 on 29.01.2013, and both the orders have already

been taken on record. 2024:CGHC:15840

Neutral Citation

-18-

E.Learned Senior counsel further submitted that Nai Duniya Media

Ltd. is a separate entity and is not a party to the pending

reference proceedings before the learned Labour Commissioner,

Raipur, therefore, no direction can be used to the petitioner to

produce the documents relating to the third-party.

F.It is argued that the documents so sought by the respondents are

irrelevant as the gross revenue for the financial years 2011–2012

and 2012–2013 will not be relevant for the purpose of calculating

the amount payable under the Act of 1955 in respect to the Wage

Board’s recommendation.

G.It is argued that the documents for the purpose of calculating the

Wage Board recommendation and fixation of classification of the

gross revenue of three accounting years i.e. 2007–2008, 2008–

2009 and 2009–2010, are relevant.

H.It is also argued that for deciding the issue of the amount payable

under the Wage Board recommendation, the gross revenue of

three accounting years i.e. 2007-2008, 2008–2009 and 2009-

2010 are relevant and it is not a case of takeover of Nai Duniya

Media Ltd, but it is a case of demerger of Print business of

newspaper. It is contended that the issue of reclassification was

not referred to the learned Labour Commissioner for adjudication.

I.Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the Labour Court

cannot travel beyond the terms of the reference.

J.In support thereof, reliance is placed on the judgments passed by 2024:CGHC:15840

Neutral Citation

-19-

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of

Hochtief Gammon

v. Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar

reported in 1964 SCR (7)

596:AIR 1964 SC 1746

and the judgment passed in Oshiar

Prasad and others v. The Employers in relation to

Management of Sudamdih Coal Washery of M/s. BCCL,

Dhanbad, Jharkhand

reported in 2015 (4) SCC 71, to

demonstrate that neither the Labour Court will be able to go into

the issue of re-classification nor respondents have any right to

ask any award on this issue.

K.Learned Senior counsel also placed reliance on the judgment

passed by the High Court of Bombay bench at Aurangabad in

M/s. Ambica Printers and Publications v. Mira Nitin Shinde,

[Writ Petition No. 12366/2019, dated 14.11.2019]

, which is

almost identical in so far as the application made by workmen

regarding the production of documents is concerned.

L.It is also argued that fishing or roving enquiry with regard to some

document sought is not permissible. In this regard, reliance is

placed on the judgment passed by the High Court of Delhi in the

matter of

Raj Sarogi v. American Express (I) Private Ltd

reported in 2001 (50) DRJ 138 (DB), wherein it is held that “a

s

and when the application under Rule 12 of Order 11 CPC is filed

seeking discovery of documents, the Court is required to exercise

discretion, as envisaged in the said Rule, which does not alter

the principle relating to the production of documents but gives the 2024:CGHC:15840

Neutral Citation

-20-

Court a discretion to refuse to direct discovery of documents

when there is no reasonable prospects of its being of any user or

to limit the nature and extent of the discovery. The discretion

undoubtedly vested in the Court must be exercised judicially to

further the primary object of the Rules for production and

discovery of documents”.

M.In the matter of Smt. Sri Devi v. Smt. Krishna Devi and others

reported in 1990 ILR 385 passed by the High Court of Madhya

Pradesh, where it is held that to invoke provisions of Order 11

Rule 12 of the CPC, the relevancy of the document is to be seen.

N.Learned Senior Advocate would finally submit that the order

passed by the Labour Court, Raipur dated 12.09.2023, whereby

the applications moved by the respondents under Order 11 Rule

12 of the CPC, have been allowed, is liable to be set aside.

4)On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents/workmen would oppose the contention advanced by the

learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and submit as under:-

A.The provisions of the Act of 1955 and the Wage Board

recommendations are relevant for the just adjudication of the

matters pending before the learned Labour Court. The

classification of the newspaper establishment is to be seen,

wherein the turnover of the company is disclosed. He further

submitted that the respondents have stated in their statement of

claim that the petitioner company is a newspaper establishment 2024:CGHC:15840

Neutral Citation

-21-

of Class-I category, having a gross turnover of more than a

thousand crores, therefore, the turnover document is necessary

for the proper adjudication of the matter.

B.Classification of the company under Chapter XIX is to be

reckoned from the date of the enforcement of the Wage Board’s

recommendation i.e. 11.11.2011. It is also contended that the

demerger of the Nai Duniya Media Limited was done in the year

2012–13, therefore, the reclassification of the gross revenue of

the company for the years 2011–12 and 2012–13 is necessary

for the proper adjudication of the matters.

C.It is also argued that averments made in para 9.2 & 9.9 of the

petitions are contrary. In para 8.3, the petitioner has stated that

the petitioner has no access to the records of Nai Duniya Media

Limited, which is a separate legal entity, but on the other hand in

para 9.2 and 9.13, the petitioner stated that it has already

produced the documents with respect to the accounting years

2007–2008, 2008–2009, 2009-2010. Again, in para 9.9, 9.10,

9.11 and 9.12, the petitioner stated that it is beyond its control to

submit the annual details of the turnover of Nai Duniya Media

Limited. It is also argued that the petitioner has specifically not

denied the existence of the aforesaid documents in replies.

D.It is also argued by Mr. Dubey that the petitioner has stated that

the first document is already produced before the High Court of

Madhya Pradesh and the High Court of Allahabad and for the 2024:CGHC:15840

Neutral Citation

-22-

rest of the documents, it is stated that those documents are not

relevant.

E.Mr. Dubey would further contend that the learned Labour Court

has passed the order after taking into consideration the

submissions made by the rival parties which does not require

any interference.

F.In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment passed

by the High Court of Allahabad Bench at Lucknow in the matter

of

Jagran Prakashan Ltd v. Sri Aman Kumar Singh and four

others

neutral citation No. 2023/AHC/174581; the judgment

passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court Bench at Jabalpur in

the matter of

Dainik Bhaskar v State of Madhya Pradesh and

others, Misc Petition No.5093 of 2022

dated 22.04.2024; the

matter of

Rajasthan Patrika v State of Madhya Pradesh and

others

passed in RP 1077 of 2019 and other connected

matters

; the matter of Nai Dunia v. State of MP and others

passed in WP No. 16209 of 2020 and other connected matters;

and the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

matter of

Avishek Raja and others v. Sanjay Gupta and

others

in MA No. 171 of 2019.

G.He further argued that it was contended by the learned Senior

Counsel for the petitioner that the order passed in the matter of

Jagran Prakashan Ltd. v. Aman Kumar Singh (Neutral

Citation No. 2023:AHC:174581)

has been stayed by the 2024:CGHC:15840

Neutral Citation

-23-

Hon’ble Supreme Court, but the order passed in the

Pankaj

Kumar v. Jagran Prakashan Ltd.

arising out of final judgment

and order dated 01.08.2022 in

LPA No.1631/2019 passed by

the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been, so produced, is

not reliable.

5)I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their

rival submissions made herein-above and perused the documents placed

on the files with utmost circumspection.

6)The issue involved in the present cases is whether the learned Labour

Court is justified in allowing the applications moved by the respondents in

respective matters under Order 11 Rule 12 of the CPC for the production

of three documents which are as under:-

1.Agreement of the Jagaran Prakashan Ltd. with Nai

Duniya Media Limited during the merger of the

companies;

2.Turnover of the financial years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012

of the de-merged company "Nai Duniya Media Limited",

and

3.Turnover of the financial years 2011-2012 and 2012-2023

of the resulting Company Jagaran Prakashan Ltd.

7)Order 11 Rule 12 of the CPC is reproduced herein-below for ready

reference:-

Order 11 CPC - DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION

“12. Application for discovery of documents.—

Any party may, without filing any affidavit, apply to the Court

for an order directing any other party to any suit to make

discovery on oaths, of the documents which are or have been

in his possession or power, relating to any matter in question

therein. On the hearing of such application the Court may 2024:CGHC:15840

Neutral Citation

-24-

either refuse or adjourn the same, if satisfied that such

discovery is not necessary, or not necessary at that stage of

the suit, or make such order, either generally or limited to

certain classes of documents, as may, in its discretion be

thought fit: Provided that discovery shall not be ordered when

and so far as the Court shall be of opinion that it is not

necessary either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving

costs.”

8)A bare reading of the aforesaid provision makes it amply clear that any

party may apply to the Court for an order directing the other party to any

suit to make discovery on oaths, of the documents which are or have been

in his possession or power, relating to any matter in question therein.

9)The court has the discretion to determine whether the requested discovery

of documents is necessary and proper for the adjudication of the matter.

The non-compliance with an order made under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC

may have consequences. The relevancy of documents is the primary

consideration before arriving at the conclusion of such application.

10)In the present case, the respondents were working on various posts under

the petitioner i.e. Nai Duniya Media Ltd. prior to the date of the demerger.

During that period, the Nai Duniya Ltd. was a unit of JPL with the caption

‘Nai Duniya’, and the recommendation of the Majithia Wage Board came

into force after the issuance of the notification dated 11.11.2011 by the

Central Government. The order of demerger of Nai Duniya Media Limited

and the JPL under Sections 391-394 read with Sections 78, 100 to 104 of

the Companies Act, 1956 was passed in Company Petition No. 30 of 2012

by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and in Company Petition No.

24/2012 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on 08.01 .2013 &

16.01.2013, respectively. 2024:CGHC:15840

Neutral Citation

-25-

11)According to the recommendations of the Wage Board, the newspaper

institutions have been divided into 8 groups. The employer Nai Dunia

Media Ltd.'s annual return for the year 2011–12 was between Rs. 50-100

crores, therefore, it would fall under Class IV.

12)The turnover of JPL for the year 2012–2013 was Rs. 1411.80 crores and it

would fall within the Class-I category as per the Wage Board’s

recommendation.

13)In M/s Ambica Printers and Publications (supra), the High Court of

Bombay Bench at Aurangabad, where balance-sheet for the accounting

years 2007-08, 2008-09, & 2010-2011, was sought by the workmen, was

denied on the ground that such direction to produce a document cannot be

issued on a mere asking. It was further observed that the exclusivity and

nexus of the document have to be assessed. It was also observed that the

employer has already submitted account details for the years 2007 to 2010

and the direction of the Labour Court to produce documents sought up to

2018 based purely on the ground that the documents are available in the

custody of the management; and thus, the order passed by the Labour

Court was set aside in view of the documents already produced by the

employer.

14)In Hochtief Gammon (supra), and Oshiar Prasad (supra), it was

observed and held that the Labour Court cannot travel beyond the issue

referred. The judgments passed in the matter of

20

th

Century Fox

Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. F.H. Lala [1974 (II) LLJ 156 BOM]; Smt.

Shri Devi

(supra); and Raj Sarogi (supra) deal with the scope of Order 2024:CGHC:15840

Neutral Citation

-26-

11 Rule 12 of the CPC. It is no longer res-integra that the order for the

production of the documents can be passed if the documents sought are

relevant for the adjudication of the matter.

15)Now coming to the judgments relied on by the counsel for the

respondents.

16)In the matter of Aman Kumar Singh (supra), the High Court of Allahabad

Bench at Lucknow while rejecting the review application preferred by

Jagran Prakashan Limited, in para-11 held as under:-

“11. Before rejecting the review application on the reasonings as

recorded above, it is essential to deprecate the conduct of the

petitioners who have continued to avoid the enforcement of the

Wage Board recommendations from the date of notification on

11.11.2011 and have resorted to taking defenses by taking shield

of the agreements which give the benefits which are less than

what were recommended by the Wage Board and have

continued to deny the benefits on one ground or the other, thus,

frustrating the entire scheme of the Act and the benefits which

flow in favour of non-journalist newspaper employees for years

together.”

17)In the matter of Dainik Bhaskar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court

while referring to the earlier judgment rendered in

Indian Express

Newspaper v. Union of India and others, 1995 suppl (4) SCC 758,

held in

para 39 as under:-

“39. Newspaper Establishment" has been defined under Section

2(d) of Act, 1955,which reads as under :

(d) "Newspaper establishment" means an establishment under

the control of any person or body of persons, whether

incorporated or not, for the production or publication of one or

more newspaper or for conducting any news agency or

syndicate:

and includes newspaper establishments specified as one

establishment under the Schedule. Explanation. -For the

purposes of this clause,-

(a) Different departments, branches and centers of newspaper

establishments shall be treated as parts thereof; 2024:CGHC:15840

Neutral Citation

-27-

(b) A printing press shall be deemed to be a newspaper

establishment if the principal business thereof is to print

newspaper.

The Apex Court in the case of Indian Express Newspapers (P)

Ltd.

(supra) held thus:-

16. As regards the other grounds of attack, we are afraid we see

no reason to interfere with the award on the said grounds. In

view of the amended definition of the "newspaper establishment"

under Section 2(d) which came into operation retrospectively

from the inception of the Act and the Explanation added to

Section 10(4), and in view further of the fact that in clubbing the

units of the establishment together, the Board cannot be said to

have acted contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Express

Newspapers case, the classification of the newspaper

establishments on all-India basis for the purpose of fixation of

wages is not bad in law. Hence it is not violative of the

petitioners' rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the

Constitution. Financial capacity of an all- India newspaper

establishment has to be considered on the basis of the gross

revenue and the financial capacity of all the units taken together.

Hence, it cannot be said that the petitioner- companies as all-

India newspaper establishments are not viable whatever the

financial incapacity of their individual units. After amendment of

Section 2(d) retrospectively read with the addition of the

Explanation to Section 10(4), the old provisions can no longer be

pressed into service to contend against the grouping of the units

of the all-India establishments, into one class.”

18)In the matter of Avishek Raja (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while

disposing of the Miscellaneous Appeal directed the Labou r

Courts/Industrial Tribunals in seisin of the matters under Section 17(2) of

the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of

Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, to dispose of the same

without granting any unnecessary adjournments keeping in mind that the

time frame fixed by the Court is six months from the date of reference. The

High Courts were requested that while entertaining matters against the

orders passed by the Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals; they will keep 2024:CGHC:15840

Neutral Citation

-28-

in mind the above time schedule so as to ensure that the order of the

Court is fully complied with.

19)In the matter at hand, the respondents are the employees of the

petitioner/newspaper establishment. They are governed by the Act of

1955. The petitioner company filed a Company Petition before the High

Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore and the High C ourt of

Allahabad for the demerger of the Petitioner Company and Jagran

Prakashan Ltd. The petitioner company took liability and assets into

account for the financial year ending on 31.03.2012, and the same was

also approved by the High Court of Allahabad.

20)To resolve the dispute with regard to the revision of rates of the wages for

working journalists and other newspaper employees, the C entral

Government constituted a Wage Board, and accepted the

recommendation made by the Majithia Wage Board constituted under the

Act of 1955 on 25.10.2011 and notified the same in the Gazette of India on

11.11.2011. The respondents moved applications before the learned

Labour Court for recovery of wages and un-deducted and unsettled

amounts as per the recommendation of the Majithia Wage Board.

21)The applications were moved by the respondents under Order 11 Rule 12

of the CPC for the production of the documents pertaining to (i) agreement

entered by Jagaran Prakashan Ltd. with Nai Duniya Media Limited during

the merger of the companies; (ii) turnover for the financial years 2010-2011

and 2011-2012 of the de-merged company "Nai Duniya Me dia

Limited"; and (iii) turnover for the financial years 2011-2012 and 2012- 2024:CGHC:15840

Neutral Citation

-29-

2013 of the resulting Company ‘Jagaran Prakashan Ltd.’ and the learned

Labour Court allowed the applications preferred by the respondents and

directed the petitioner to submit the same.

22)The petitioner filed a reply to the application moved by the respective

respondents and did not deny the existence of the aforesaid documents.

It is stated that document No.1 was filed in the Company Petition before

the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore and the High Court of

Allahabad. With regard to documents No. 2 and 3, the petitioner stated

that those documents are not relevant.

23)Clause 3 of the Majithia Board recommendations contained in Section II

and duly notified under Section 12 are 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 newspaper employees

(other than the news agencies), the newspaper establishments

shall be classified hereinafter provided :

(a)(i) The classification of newspaper establishments shall be

based on the average gross revenue of three accounting years

2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. The different departments,

branches and centres of newspaper establishments shall be

treated as parts thereof.

(ii) Notwithstanding the clubbing of different departments,

branches and centres of newspaper establishments on the basis

of their own gross revenue, the units of the newspaper

establishments of all the classes as categorized in paragraph 6

of this Chapter shall not be stepped up by more than two classes

over and above the classes to which they belong according to

their gross revenue, as a result of their clubbing.

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 2024:CGHC:15840

Neutral Citation

-30-

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.

Provided that-

Notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (b), (c) and (d)

above, a newspaper establishment which is classified on the

basis of two (2) accounting years shall be placed one class lower

than the class in which it is liable to be placed and a newspaper

establishment, which is classified on the basis of one accounting

year, shall be placed two classes lower than the class in which it

is liable to be placed. In either case, it shall not be lower than

Class VIII. ”

24)From a perusal of the aforestated provisions, it is apparent that the

classification of newspaper establishments shall be based on the average

gross revenue of three accounting years i.e. 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-

10.

25)It is further explained in Clause(b) that 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.

26)Thus, from the perusal of the above provisions, it is quite vivid that the

document with regard to the average gross revenue of three accounting

years is relevant for the determination of the fixation or revision of rates of

wages of the working journalists or non-working journalists at newspaper

establishments. 2024:CGHC:15840

Neutral Citation

-31-

27)Clause 7(2) of the Majithia Wage Board recommendation deals with the

Continuance of classification and reclassification, which reads as under:-

“7(2) It shall be open either to the employer or to the employee

to seek a reclassification of a - newspaper establishment at any

time after one year from the date of the enforcement of the

Award on the basis of the average gross revenue of the three

immediately preceding accounting years;

Provided that such reclassification should not be sought more

than once in any period of three consecutive accounting years.

Provided that any such reclassification made as per paragraph 7

(2) is required to be adjusted towards the price escalation

worked out on the basis of wholesale price index with effect from

the financial year just before the implementation of the Majithia

Wage Boards Awards."

28)The above provision would make it abundantly clear that it is open to the

employer or the employee to seek a reclassification of a newspaper

establishment at any time after one year from the date of the enforcement

of the award based on the average gross revenue of three immediately

preceding accounting years. The proviso appended to Clause 7(2) of the

Majithia Wage Board recommendation says that reclassification is required

to be adjusted towards the price escalation worked out on the basis of the

wholesale price index with effect from the financial year just before the

implementation of the Majithia Wage Board’s Award.

29)In the matter of ABP (P) Limited v. Union of India, (2014) 3 SCC 327, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court while dismissing the writ petitions held that the

wages as revised/determined shall be payable from 11.11.2011 when the

Government of India notified the recommendations of the Majithia Wage

Board. All the arrears up to March, 2014 shall be paid to all eligible

persons in four equal installments within a period of one year and shall 2024:CGHC:15840

Neutral Citation

-32-

continue to pay the revised wages from April, 2014 onwards.

30)From a bare reading of the observations made it is quite vivid that the

petitioner and other similarly situated companies have to make payment of

arrears of revised rates of wages to the working journalists and other non-

journalist employees.

31)For the determination of the amount of the revised rate of wages, the

documents as sought by the respondents are relevant.

32)In the matter of Nai Dunia (supra), in para 7, 9 & 15 it was observed and

held as under: –

“7. Implementation/non-implementation of the benefits flowing

therefrom and the controversy related and incidental thereto had

given rise to mushroom growth of litigation at different forums.

Eventually, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided a bunch of

writ petitions lead case being W.P. (Civil) No.246 of 2011 (ABP

Pvt. Ltd., & Another Vs. Union of India and others) alongwith

Contempt petition (Civil) No.252 of 2012 on 07/02/2014. The

operative portion reads as under:

"73. In view of our conclusion and dismissal of all the writ

petitions, the wages as revised/determined shall be payable

from 11.11.2011 when the Government of India notified the

recommendations of the Majithia Wage Boards. All the

arrears up to March, 2014 shall be paid to all eligible

persons in four equal installments within a period of one

year from today and continue to pay the revised wages from

April, 2014 onwards."

9. Thereafter, in the aforesaid case by another dated 13/10/2017,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

"Upon hearing the learned counsel for the applicant we clarify

our Judgment dated 19.06.2017 to mean that dispute (s) referred

for adjudication under Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists

and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and

Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 will be disposed of by the

concerned Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal as Expeditiously as

possible, preferably, within six months of the reference being

made. With the aforesaid clarification the miscellaneous 2024:CGHC:15840

Neutral Citation

-33-

application is disposed of."

15. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner

that it shall be precluded to raise the jurisdictional issue related

to the question/entitlement of the amount due, regard being had

to the terms of the reference, in the opinion of this Court, is

misconceived. The labour Court shall have jurisdiction to decide

the points arising out of reference as well as the matters

incidental thereto as provided for under section 10(4) of the Act

of 1947. It needs no mention that the aforesaid sub-section (4) of

section 10 of the Act of 1947 empowers the labour Court to deal

with the jurisdictional facts arising out of terms of the reference.”

33)Thus, the Labour Court has the jurisdiction to decide the points arising out

of the reference as well as the matter incidental thereto as provided under

Section 10(4) of the Act of 1947. Section 10(4) of the Act of 1947

empowers the Labour Court to deal with the jurisdictional issues arising

out of the terms of the reference.

34)In the matter of Avishek Raja (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court directed

the Labour Courts/Industrial Tribunals in seisin of the matters under

Section 17(2) of the Act of 1955 to dispose of the same without granting

any unnecessary adjournments keeping in mind the time frame of six

months fixed by the Court from the date of reference.

35)In the matter of ABP Private Limited (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in clear terms held that the wages as revised/determined shall be payable

from 11.11.2011.

36)Reliance placed by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner on M/s.

Ambika Printers and Publications

(supra), decided by the High Court of

Bombay Bench at Aurangabad wherein the application moved under order

11 Rule 12 of the CPC was rejected, the petition filed by the petitioner was 2024:CGHC:15840

Neutral Citation

-34-

allowed and the order passed by the Labour Court was set aside on the

ground that the petitioner of that case had already deposited the certificate

dated 07.08.2014 issued by the Chartered Accountant indicating the gross

revenue as well as the gross revenue of the entire establishment for three

financial years, whereas, in the present case, no such documents have

been placed on the record to show the gross revenue for three accounting

years.

37)In the matter of Jagaran Prakashan Ltd. (supra), a similar issue was

involved wherein the original petition was dismissed and thereafter the

review petition was also dismissed.

38)For revision and fixation of wages of the working journalists or other

employees of the news establishment, the documents sought by the

respondents are relevant and the learned Labour Court has not committed

any error of law in allowing such application(s).

39)Taking into consideration the facts and law discussed above, these

petitions are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)

Judge

Nadim 2024:CGHC:15840

Neutral Citation