SUDHIR VS. HEAD OF HUMAN RESOURCE, DAINIK BHASKAR GROUP (D.B.CORP LTD.)

2026 INSC 8341

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. ………. OF 2026

[ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NOS. 2824-2839 OF 2023]

SUDHIR & ORS. … APPELLANTS

VS.

HEAD OF HUMAN RESOURCE,

DAINIK BHASKAR GROUP

(D.B. CORP. LTD.) & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. ………. OF 2026

[ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 4964 OF 2023]

SUDHIR & ORS. … APPELLANTS

VS.

ALL INDIA REPORTER PRIVATE

LIMITED & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. ………. OF 2026

[ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NOS. 17104-17119 OF 2023]

BRIHANMUMBAI UNION OF JOURNALISTS … APPELLANT

VS.

HEAD OF HUMAN RESOURCE,

DAINIK BHASKAR GROUP

(D.B. CORP. LTD.) & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. ………. OF 2026

[ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 6643 OF 2025]

ALL INDIA REPORTER

KARMACHARI SANGH … APPELLANT

VS.

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

1. Special leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of judgments of the High Court of Bombay1,

Bench at Aurangabad2 and the Bench at Nagpur3. Since they involve

a common question of law, we propose to decide the same by this

common judgment and order.

3. A Single Judge of the High Court presiding over a Bench at

Aurangabad allowed 16 (sixteen) writ petitions4 of the employer-

1 High Court

2 Judgment dated 22nd December, 2022

3 Judgment dated 17th November, 2022

4 W.P. No.11646 of 2019, being the lead writ petition along with W.P. No.11665/2019 with

W.P. No.4864/2022 with W.P. No.4862/2022 with W.P. No.4869/2022 with W.P.

No.4870/2022 with W.P. No.4858/2022 with WP No.4860/2022 with WP No.4859/2022

with W.P. No.4861/2022 with W.P. No.4865/2022 with W.P. No.4868/2022 with W.P.

Dainik Bhaskar (one of the respondents before us) by setting aside,

inter alia, an award of the Labour Court, Aurangabad dated 4th

January, 2019, which was under challenge. The Single Judge felt

bound by the judgment of the Division Bench of the same High Court

delivered from the Bench at Nagpur. The Division Bench had, by its

judgment, while allowing a writ petition5, upheld a preliminary

objection raised by the employer-All India Reporter Private Ltd.6 (one

of the other respondents before us) and set aside the reference made

to the 4th Labour Court, Nagpur by the Additional Commissioner of

Labour.

4. Incidentally, in purported exercise of power conferred by Section

17(2) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees

(Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 19557

(since repealed by the Occupational Safety, Health and Working

Conditions Code, 20208 with effect from 21st November, 2025 by way

of a notification CG-DL-E-21112025-267884 issued by the Ministry of

Labour and Employment), the Industries, Energy and Labour

Department, Government of Maharashtra9 vide notification dated 11th

May, 201610 had delegated the power to make reference to the

No.4866/2022 with W.P. No.4867 /2022 with W.P. No.4863/2022 with W.P.

No.10774/2022

5 W.P.No.6402 of 2019

6 AIR (P) Ltd.

7 Working Journalists Act

8 OSH Code

9 GoM

10 Notification

officers named therein (namely the Additional Commissioners of

Labour and the Deputy Commissioners of Labour) to the relevant

Labour Courts within their jurisdiction.

5. The central question before the High Court (and also before this

Court) was, whether Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists Act

empowered a State Government to delegate its power to refer a

dispute relating to the quantum of dues payable to an employee by

his employer to a Labour Court for decision to any other authority.

6. It is noted that the judgment dated 22nd December, 2022 of the

Aurangabad Bench of the High Court is assailed in the lead appeal at

the instance of an employee-Sudhir and other employees. Sudhir,

along with others, has also impugned the judgment of the Nagpur

Bench dated 17th November, 2022 in the first connected appeal. The

second connected appeal is at the instance of a union of journalists

in the State of Maharashtra, which has questioned the judgment

dated 22nd December, 2022 of the Aurangabad Bench. Exception to

the judgment dated 17th November, 2022 of the Nagpur Bench has

been taken by the union of employees of AIR (P) Ltd. in the third

connected appeal.

7. At this stage, it would be apposite to reproduce Section 17 of the

Working Journalists Act. It reads as follows:

“17. Recovery of money due from an employer. - (1) Where any

amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an

employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised

by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the

employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any

other mode of recovery, make an application to the State

Government for the recovery of the amount due to him, and if the

State Government or such authority, as the State Government may

specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall

issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector, and the Collector

shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an

arrear of land revenue.

(2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a

newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may,

on its own motion or upon application made to it, refer the question

to any Labour Court constituted by it under the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), or under any corresponding law relating to

investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in the

State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the

Labour Court as if the question so referred were a matter referred to

the Labour Court for adjudication under that Act or law.

(3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the

State Government which made the reference and any amount found

due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided

in sub-section (1).”

8. We intend to, in the course of our judgment, analyse the

requirements of Section 17(2) and the silences therein, in some

detail. What appears to be at the heart of Section 17(2), relevant for

the purpose of a decision on these appeals, is reference of a dispute

regarding an amount due to an employee from his employer to the

Labour Court. The interpretation of the power of referral under

Section 17(2) is highly important for employers and employees alike,

for, it would determine the ultimate validity of awards passed by the

Labour Courts and the success of subsequent litigations involving the

award, if any. If the reference itself has been made by an authority

which is incompetent to make it, the ultimate award passed by the

Labour Court would indeed become questionable.

9. It would be apposite here to also refer to a decision of this Court in

Samarjit Ghosh v. Bennett Coleman & Co.11. Appellant therein, a

working journalist then employed at the Calcutta branch office of the

respondent, had applied to the Government of West Bengal under

Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists Act for recovery of unpaid

wages. He was transferred to Pune, Maharashtra, while the resulting

conciliation proceedings were still pending, and it was only after

conciliation failed that the Government of West Bengal referred the

dispute to the Labour Court under Section 17(2). The Court held that

the provisions of Section 17, read together, constitute a single

scheme. Furthermore, the State Government before which an

application under Section 17(1) is determined, under Rule 36 of the

Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous

Provisions Rules, 1957, by the location of the Central or Branch Office

at which the employee is employed at the time, is the competent

authority to refer any question as to the amount due under Section

17(2). It is also the competent authority to which the Labour Court’s

decision must be forwarded under Section 17(3) for recovery. It was

held, in effect, that jurisdiction to make the reference follows the

application: the State Government before which an application for

recovery was rightly made is alone competent to refer the dispute for

11 (1987) 3 SCC 507

adjudication, and this is unaffected by the employee’s subsequent

transfer to another State during the pendency of the proceedings.

10. Relevant paragraphs from such decision are reproduced hereinbelow:

4. The question whether the Government of West Bengal was

empowered to make a reference of the dispute between the appellant

and the employer company must be determined by the provisions of

the Act in their application to the facts of this case. Section 17 of the

Act makes provision for the recovery of money due to a newspaper

employee from his employer. Sub-section (1) requires that an

application by the newspaper employee complaining that an amount

due to him has remained unpaid by the employer should be made to

the State Government, and provides that if the State Government is

satisfied that any amount is so due it is empowered to issue a

certificate for that amount to the Collector, and thereupon the

Collector must proceed to recover that amount in the same manner

as an arrear of land revenue. Which is the State Government to which

such application lies is indicated by Rule 36 of the Rules made under

the Act. Rule 36 provides that an application under Section 17 of the

Act shall be made to the Government of the State where the Central

Office or the Branch Office of the newspaper establishment in which

the newspaper employee is employed is situated. It is the location of

the Central Office or the Branch Office in which the newspaper

employee is employed which determines which State Government it

will be. The Rule works in favour of the convenience of the newspaper

employees.

***

6. When all the provisions of Section 17 are considered together it is

apparent that they constitute a single scheme. In simple terms the

scheme is this. A newspaper employee, who claims that an amount

due to him has not been paid by his employer, can apply to the State

Government for recovery of the amount. If no dispute arises as to

the amount due the Collector will recover the amount from the

employer and pay it over to the newspaper employee. If a question

arises as to the amount due, it is a question which arises on the

application made by the newspaper employee, and the application

having been made before the appropriate State Government it is that

State Government which will call for an adjudication of the dispute

by referring the question to a Labour Court. When the Labour Court

has decided the question, it will forward its decision to the State

Government which made the reference, and thereafter the State

Government will direct that recovery proceedings shall be taken. In

other words the State Government before whom the application for

recovery is made is the State Government which will refer the

question as to the amount due to a Labour Court, and the Labour

Court upon reaching its decision will forward the decision to the State

Government, which will then direct recovery of the amount.

(emphasis supplied)

11. That all the sub-sections of Section 17 constitute a single scheme is

not, therefore, in doubt, and we will, in the course of our judgment

address what was meant when the Court used the phrase “single

scheme”. Indeed, this Court has recognised in paragraph 6 of

Bennett Coleman (supra) that it is for the State Government to call

for an adjudication of the dispute by referring the question to the

Labour Court. However, given that such observations were not made

in a fact situation where reference was made by a delegate of the

State Government, the said decision is an authority for what it

actually decided and not what can logically be deduced therefrom.

Thus, there arises the necessity to consider Section 17 afresh in the

light of the facts before us, the submissions advanced and the

decisions of the High Courts on the interpretation of Section 17.

12. For the purpose of our assessment of Section 17(2), it would be

relevant to assess the statutory scheme in its entirety.

13. Sub-section (1) of Section 17 contemplates a stage where any sum

allegedly due to the employee from the employer is claimed by the

former and the latter refuses to acknowledge its liability. If the State

Government is moved by the employee seeking recovery of the

amount due to him, the State Government has two options. First, the

State Government can satisfy itself that any amount is so due; or, in

the alternative, the State Government may specify an authority12 to

12 specified authority

satisfy itself (read: specified authority) that any amount is so due.

Subject to the satisfaction being reached that any amount is due13,

the State Government or the specified authority, as the case may be,

shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector, whereupon

the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same

manner as an arrear of land revenue.

14. What is the course of action to be adopted if the employer disputes

the claim on any ground, like quantum or even liability, and refuses

to pay? It is here that sub-section (2) of Section 17 comes into play.

It ordains that if any question arises as to the amount due under the

Working Journalists Act, the State Government may, either suo motu

or on an application made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court

constituted by it under the Industrial Disputes Act, 194714 (since

repealed by the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, with effect from 21st

November, 2025), or under any corresponding law relating to

investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in the

State.

15. Sub-section (3) of Section 17 deals with the post-decision stage. The

Labour Court is required by the law to forward its decision to the State

Government which made the reference and recovery of any amount

found due by the Labour Court has to be in the manner provided in

13 Which the employer does not dispute – this has to be read into sub-section (1) of

Section 17 for a meaningful construction of the entire section

14 ID Act

sub-section (1) of Section 17, i.e., by issuance of a certificate to the

Collector for effecting recovery in the same manner land revenue is

recovered.

16. Having read Section 17 and its requirements, we need to understand

what is unsaid and what is said.

17. First, we would read Section 17(1) as impliedly requiring the State

Government or the specified authority to put the employer on notice

prior to reaching any satisfaction as to the amount due, since this

requirement is absent in the text of sub-section (1) and must be read

into the statute to make it meaningful.

18. Secondly, the specified authority under Section 17(1) (being the

delegate) is also impliedly required to report to the State Government

that no certificate could be issued by him to the Collector because

either the sum claimed by the employee is disputed by the employer

or the liability to pay is denied.

19. Thirdly, on a comparative study of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section

17, what draws our immediate attention is the express power

conferred on the State Government by the legislature to delegate its

function to the specified authority in Section 17(1) and the absence

of such power of delegation in Section 17(2). The Latin maxim unius

est exclusio alterius comes to mind, which means the express

mention of one excludes the other. In the context of the statutory

provision under consideration, where the legislature has conferred

the power of delegation to the State Government for the function

required to be performed as required by sub-section (1) of Section

17 but has chosen to remain silent for the follow-up function, as

envisaged in sub-section (2) of Section 17, the presumption to be

drawn is that the legislature did not intend the power of delegation to

be conferred on the State Government for making a reference to the

Labour Court under Section 17(2).

20. Significantly, sub-section (2) of Section 17 does not even remotely

refer to power to make any reference being delegated to the specified

authority.

21. Lastly, sub-section (3) of Section 17 mandates the State Government,

which made the reference under Section 17(2), to give effect to the

decision of the Labour Court, if it is in favour of the employee, by

issuing a certificate for recovery of the amount determined to be due

in the same manner as in sub-section (1) of Section 17. Here too,

recognition is attributed to the State Government as having the power

to refer and not to the specified authority as in sub-section (1) of

Section 17.

22. On the plain language of Section 17, we have no hesitation to hold

that though the power of delegation is available to the State

Government under sub-section (1) of Section 17, such power is

unavailable under sub-section (2) of Section 17.

23. There is, to our mind, another weighty reason for concluding that

delegation of power for making a reference to the Labour Court is not

contemplated by sub-section (2) of Section 17.

24. The reason is this. In the field of administrative law, it is well-known

that an authority who is conferred power by the Constitution or by a

statute can delegate to a subordinate what such authority is

empowered to do. As in the present case, express power of delegation

is given to the State Government by sub-section (1) of Section 17.

Having dealt with the plain language of Section 17, let us now

ascertain what the statutory scheme is.

25. At the outset, we may draw useful guidance from the decision of this

Court in Pradyot Kumar Bose v. The Hon’ble The Chief Justice

of Calcutta High Court15 in this regard. There, this Court, inter alia,

was called upon to decide whether the Chief Justice had the power to

delegate to another Judge, an enquiry into charges against the

appellant. Spurning the objection of the appellant, the Court held as

follows:

18. The further subordinate objections that have been raised remain

to be considered. The first objection that has been urged is that even

if the Chief Justice had the power to dismiss, he was not, in exercise

of that power, competent to delegate to another Judge the enquiry

into the charges but should have made the enquiry himself. This

contention proceeds on a misapprehension of the nature of the

power. As pointed out in Barnard v. National Dock Labour Board

[(1953) 2 QB 18)] at QB p. 40, it is true that “No judicial tribunal can

delegate its functions unless it is enabled to do so expressly or by

necessary implication”. But the exercise of the power to appoint or

dismiss an officer is the exercise not of a judicial power but of an

administrative power. It is nonetheless so, by reason of the fact that

an opportunity to show cause and an enquiry simulating judicial

standards have to precede the exercise thereof. It is well recognised

that a statutory functionary exercising such a power cannot be said

to have delegated his functions merely by deputing a responsible and

15 (1955) 2 SCC 791

competent official to enquire and report. That is the ordinary mode

of exercise of any administrative power. What cannot be delegated

except where the law specifically so provides—is the ultimate

responsibility for the exercise of such power. As pointed out by the

House of Lords in Board of Education v. Rice [1911 AC 179 (HL)], a

functionary who has to decide an administrative matter, of the nature

involved in this case, can obtain the material on which he is to act in

such manner as may be feasible and convenient, provided only the

affected party “has a fair opportunity to correct or contradict any

relevant and prejudicial material”.

19. The following passage from the speech of Lord Chancellor in Local

Govt. Board v. Arlidge [1915 AC 120 (HL)] is apposite and

instructive: (AC p. 133)

“My Lords, I concur in this view of the position of an

administrative body to which the decision of a question in

dispute between parties has been entrusted. The result of its

inquiry must, as I have said, be taken, in the absence of

directions in the statute to the contrary, to be intended to be

reached by its ordinary procedure. In the case of the Local

Government Board it is not doubtful what this procedure is.

The Minister at the head of the Board is directly responsible to

Parliament like other Ministers. He is responsible not only for

what he himself does but for all that is done in his department.

The volume of work entrusted to him is very great and he

cannot do the great bulk of it himself. He is expected to obtain

his materials vicariously through his officials, and he has

discharged his duty if he sees that they obtain these materials

for him properly. To try to extend his duty beyond this and to

insist that he and other members of the Board should do

everything personally would be to impair his efficiency. Unlike

a Judge in a Court he is not only at liberty but is compelled to

rely on the assistance of his staff.”

20. In view of the above clear statement of the law the objection to

the validity of the dismissal on the ground that the delegation of the

enquiry amounts to the delegation of the power itself is without any

substance and must be rejected.

(emphasis supplied)

26. What follows from the aforesaid passage is that having regard to the

great volume of work necessary to be carried out, it may not be

possible for the State Government to do the great bulk of work itself;

the State Government, in the ordinary course of its administrative

functions, has to and can rely on materials vicariously obtained

through its officials, and it would amount to sufficient compliance of

law if the discharge of duty that the law requires is premised on a

proper consideration of the materials so obtained. However, it is of

utmost importance that unless authorised by law, what cannot be

delegated is the ultimate responsibility for exercise of the power

entrusted.

27. In this context, we may also profitably make reference to a 3-Judge

Bench decision of this Court in in Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd. v.

Employees State Insurance Corporation16. In this case, this

Court was concerned with the vires of a resolution dated 28th

February 1976 adopted by the Employees State Insurance

Corporation under Section 94-A of the Employees State Insurance

Act, 194817 which authorized the Director General “or any other

officer authorized by him” to recover damages under Section 85-B(1)

of the ESI Act. Evaluating whether the statute contemplated any

express or implied powers of sub-delegation, this Court observed as

follows:

5. The courts are normally rigorous in requiring the power to be

exercised by the persons or the bodies authorised by the statutes. It

is essential that the delegated power should be exercised by the

authority upon whom it is conferred and by no one else. At the same

time, in the present administrative set-up extreme judicial aversion

to delegation cannot be carried to an extreme. A public authority is

16 (1994) 5 SCC 346

17 ESI Act

at liberty to employ agents to exercise its powers. That is why in

many statutes, delegation is authorised either expressly or impliedly.

Due to the enormous rise in the nature of the activities to be handled

by statutory authorities, the maxim delegatus non potest delegare is

not being applied specially when there is question of exercise of

administrative discretionary power.

6. By now it is almost settled that the legislature can permit any

statutory authority to delegate its power to any other authority, of

course, after the policy has been indicated in the statute itself within

the framework of which such delegatee is to exercise the power. The

real problem or the controversy arises when there is a sub-

delegation. It is said that when Parliament has specifically appointed

authority to discharge a function, it cannot be readily presumed that

it had intended that its delegate should be free to empower another

person or body to act in its place. In Barium Chemicals

Ltd. v. Company Law Board [AIR 1967 SC 295 : 1966 Supp SCR 311

: (1966) 36 Com Cas 639] , this Court said in respect of sub-

delegation:

“Bearing in mind that the maxim delegatus non potest delegare sets

out what is merely a rule of construction, sub-delegation can be

sustained if permitted by express provision or by necessary

implication.”

7. Again in Mangulal Chunilal v. Manilal Maganlal [AIR 1968 SC 822

: (1968) 2 SCR 401 : 1968 Cri LJ 979] , while considering the scope

of Section 481(1)(a) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation

Act (59 of 1949) this Court said that Commissioner of the Ahmedabad

Municipal Corporation had delegated his power and function under

the aforesaid section to a Municipal Officer to launch proceedings

against a person charged with offences under the Act or the rules and

that officer to whom such functions were delegated could not further

delegate the same to another.

8. In Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. I, in respect of sub-

delegation of powers it has been said:

“In accordance with the maxim delegatus non potest delegare, a

statutory power must be exercised only by the body or officer in

whom it has been confided, (H. Lavender & Son Ltd. v. Minister

of Housing and Local Government [(1970) 3 All ER 871 : (1970)

1 WLR 1231] ) unless sub-delegation of the power is authorised

by express words or necessary implication (Customs and Excise

Comrs. v. Cure and Deeley Ltd. [(1962) 1 QB 340 : (1961) 3 All

ER 641 : (1961) 3 WLR 798] and Mungoni v. Attorney General of

Northern Rhodesia [(1960) 1 All ER 446 : (1960) 2 WLR 389 :

1960 AC 336, PC] ). There is a strong presumption against

construing a grant of legislative, judicial, or disciplinary power as

impliedly authorising sub-delegation; and the same may be said

of any power to the exercise of which the designated body should

address its own mind. Allam & Co. v. Europa Poster Services

Ltd. [(1968) 1 All ER 826 : (1968) 1 WLR 638] …”

***

10. So far as the present Section 94-A is concerned, it says that the

Corporation subject to any regulation made by the Corporation in that

behalf, may direct that particular or any of the powers and functions

which may be exercised or performed by the Corporation, may, in

relation to such matters and subject to such conditions, if any, as

may be specified “be also exercisable by any officer or authority

subordinate to the Corporation”. Section 94-A does not specifically

provide that any officer or authority subordinate to the Corporation

to whom the power has been delegated by the Corporation, may in

his turn authorise any other officer to exercise or perform that power

or function. But by the resolution dated 28-2-1976 the Corporation

has not only delegated its power under Section 85-B(1) of the Act to

the Director General, but has also empowered the Director General

to authorise any other officer to exercise the said power. Unless it is

held that Section 94-A of the Act, enables the Corporation to delegate

any of its powers and functions to any officer or authority subordinate

to the Corporation, and he in his turn can sub-delegate the exercise

of the said power to any other officer, the last part of the resolution

dated 28-2-1976 cannot be held to be within the framework of

Section 94-A. According to us, Parliament while introducing Section

94-A in the Act, only conceived direct delegation by the Corporation

to different officers or authorities, subordinate to the Corporation,

and there is no scope for such delegate to sub-delegate that power,

by authorising any other officer to exercise or perform the power so

delegated.

(emphasis supplied)

28. The situation in Sahni Silk Mills (supra) does not arise here.

However, viewed in the prism of the present debate and in light of

the decision in Pradyot Kumar Bose (supra), it is found that the

legislature in its wisdom permitted the State Government in Section

17(1) to delegate power to the specified authority to issue the

certificate to the Collector for recovery of any amount due in those

rare cases where the employer does not dispute the entitlement and,

consequently, the claim or at least a part of it. However, once it is

reported by the specified authority to the State Government that the

entitlement and/or the claim is denied and disputed, such specified

authority becomes functus officio. As one proceeds to the next stage

contemplated under Section 17(2), the legislature in no uncertain

terms makes the position clear that the administrative power to make

a reference rests with the State Government and none else. What a

reference to the Labour Court presupposes is a satisfaction reached

by the State Government that there exists a dispute between the

employee and the employer under the Working Journalists Act, which

needs to be resolved by a decision of the Labour Court. This

satisfaction, which must precede the making of the reference, is the

responsibility of the State Government upon giving due regard to the

materials on record placed before it, which could even include the

materials collected by the specified authority while it proceeded, after

delegation in its favour by the State Government, in terms of sub-

section (1) of Section 17. The provision of sub-section (2) of Section

17 leaves absolutely no room for the specified authority to undertake

the function which is solely entrusted to the State Government

thereunder. In other words, the power of delegation which is traceable

in sub-section (1) of Section 17 cannot be borrowed therefrom to

apply it to a situation requiring action under sub-section (2) of Section

17.

29. At this stage, we may also deal with the arguments advanced by the

learned counsel for the appellants. Placing reliance on Bennett

Coleman (supra), it was argued that Section 17 contemplates a

single seamless scheme wherein any dispute concerning any amount

due to an employee could be referred to the Labour Court and since

the Working Journalists Act is a beneficial legislation, the power of

delegation should be impliedly read into Section 17(2) of the Working

Journalists Act. We are unable to agree with these arguments

advanced by the learned counsel. As stated above in paragraph 11,

Bennett Coleman (supra) did not deal with a situation wherein the

State Government had delegated any power under Section 17(2).

What the Court meant when it observed that Section 17 constituted

a “single scheme” was that the said section only categorically and

sequentially laid down the steps to be followed for the recovery of

any amount due to an employee. Additionally, while it is true that the

Working Journalists Act is a beneficial legislation which has been

enacted for the benefit of employees working in newspaper

establishments and should be interpreted in favour of such employees

as observed by this Court in All India Reporter Karamchari Sangh

v. All India Reporter Private Limited18, at the same time, we

cannot lose sight of the literal rule of interpretation, and in the

absence of any ambiguity while interpreting the statute, the language

used by the legislature cannot be modified. On a plain interpretation

of Section 17(2), there is absolutely no ambiguity with regard to the

18 AIR 1988 SC 1325

requirement that it is the State Government alone which can refer

the matter to the Labour Court.

30. Next, the learned counsel for the appellants also contended that the

power of the State Government under Section 17(2) was merely an

administrative power akin to the power of the appropriate

Government under Section 10(1) of the ID Act and that

administrative functions of the State could be delegated, when the

statute has not prescribed any mechanism for its implementation.

Learned counsel relied on the decisions in Telco Convoy Drivers

Mazdoor Sangh & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors.19, State of

Madras v. C.P. Sarathy & Anr.20 and Sidhartha Sarawgi v. Board

of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata & Ors.21 to support their

contentions.

31. We are afraid, these decisions are unable to aid the appellants’ case.

Telco Convoy Drivers (supra) involved a case wherein the

appropriate Government refused to refer the dispute of the appellant

trade union therein under Section 10(1) of the ID Act and this Court

held that the appropriate Government, performing an administrative

function, did not have the power to adjudicate the dispute at the

stage of referral. The central question before this Court in Telco

(supra) did not involve any delegation of power to a third party by

19 (1989) 3 SCC 271

20 (1952) 2 SCC 606

21 AIR 2015 SC 1271

the appropriate Government under Section 10(1) of the ID Act.

Similarly, C.P. Sarathy (supra) did not involve any question of

delegation of power to a third party by the appropriate Government;

rather, the question before this Court in that case was the level of

detail required to be expressed on the dispute by the appropriate

Government while making a reference under Section 10(1) of the ID

Act. Finally, in Sidhartha Sarawgi (supra), certain leases were

terminated pursuant to ejectment notices which were signed by the

Land Manager of Kolkata Port Trust. Challenging these ejectment

notices, the appellants therein argued that such ejectment notices

were illegal and could not be issued by the Land Manager. Any steps

for ejectment had to be made by the Chairman of the Kolkata Port

Trust. Rejecting this contention of the appellants, this Court observed

that the ultimate power to terminate leases had been vested in the

Chairman by virtue of a resolution passed by the Board of Kolkata

Port Trust pursuant to Section 21 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963

and that while the Chairman had taken the ultimate decision to

terminate the leases in question, the Land Manager had only been

authorized to implement the said decision of the Chairman. In the

present instance, Section 17(2) contemplates that the ultimate

decision to refer the dispute to the Labour Court is taken by the State

Government alone. The Notification of the GoM does not merely vest

powers of implementation on the specified authorities, rather, it vests

the ultimate decision making authority in regard to making a

reference to the specified authorities and completely takes away the

statutory duty of the State Government under Section 17(2) to refer

the dispute. The cases before us do not involve the specified

authorities acting as mere implementing agencies of the State

Government.

32. We are, thus, of the considered opinion that the GoM fell in grave

error in delegating power to the specified authorities to make

reference under sub-section (2) of Section 17 to the Labour Court.

While we do not approve the decision of the Allahabad High Court in

Pradhan Prabandhak/Unit Head M/s. Amar Ujala v. State of

Uttar Pradesh22 taking a contrary view, we affirm the judgments of

the High Court under challenge in these appeals as well as the

decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in

Jagran Parkashan Limited v. State of Punjab23.

33. Resting on the aforesaid conclusion, dismissal of the appeals should

be the obvious outcome. However, having regard to the lapse of time

since the Notification was issued and the developments subsequent

thereto, we do not think it to be proper to put the parties back to

square one particularly when the Working Journalists Act stands

repealed with effect from 21st November, 2025 by the OSH Code, and

the question of making new references under Section 17(2) would,

thus, not arise in future.

22 (2018) SCC OnLine All 7010

23 (2019) SCC OnLine P&H 8047

34. Exploring an answer to deal with the problem, in our view, lies in the

principles akin to ratification.

35. We are not unmindful of the decision of this Court in Marathwada

University v. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan24, where it was held

that the principles of ratification apparently do not have any

application with regard to exercise of powers conferred under

statutory provisions.

36. However, the said decision is distinguishable because of the peculiar

facts of these appeals. The Notification of the GoM authorised the

stated specified authorities to make references to the relevant Labour

Courts, subject to the necessary satisfaction being reached that a

dispute did exist. It is in pursuance of such notification that references

have been made to Labour Courts all over the State of Maharashtra

by the specified authorities. On the dates the references were made,

the specified authorities did not per se act without jurisdiction. The

references were backed by the Notification. Little did the specified

authorities know that conferment of power on them by the GoM would

be assailed later and the Notification declared bad. In a sense, this is

a situation better than the one where the principles of ratification

apply (enabling an unauthorised action of an agent being validated

as a result of ratification by the principal). What has essentially to be

enquired is, whether a dispute did exist under the Working Journalists

24 (1989) 3 SCC 132

Act, which could have legitimately been referred to the Labour Court

for resolution upon a satisfaction reached by the GoM.

37. Bearing this in mind, we direct that the impugned judgments of the

Nagpur and Aurangabad Benches of the High Court shall neither bring

about a termination of the proceedings referred to the respective

Labour Courts by the relevant specified authority or the proceedings

which were dealt with by the High Court, nor shall the proceedings

which are pending before the Labour Courts terminate by reason of

our judgment.

38. In exercise of the power conferred on this Court by Article 142 of the

Constitution of India, we further direct that the GoM in the

appropriate department shall revisit all references made to the

Labour Courts by the respective specified authorities. Upon an

independent exercise being undertaken in each case and

uninfluenced by the satisfaction reached by the specified authorities,

the GoM shall be under an obligation to record fresh satisfaction that

there existed a dispute as to amount due which was worthy of being

referred. In those cases where satisfaction is reached, a fresh

reference shall be made by the GoM outlining the terms for the same

to be decided in accordance with law. The proceedings shall, however,

be taken forward from the stage the Labour Courts have reached. If

further evidence is required to be led by any of the parties consequent

upon the fresh reference, the Labour Court shall offer an opportunity

to the party seeking to lead further evidence and likewise, allow the

opposite party to lead evidence in defence.

39. Even in those cases where the Labour Courts have passed awards

acting in furtherance of references made by the specified authorities

and such awards are under challenge before the High Court, the GoM

has to certify that it is satisfied that the dispute was rightly referred.

In such case, the correctness and/or legality of the awards which are

under challenge before any bench of the High Court may be examined

on its own merits.

40. Since the cluster of writ petitions referred to in paragraph 3 (supra)

read with the relevant footnote, from which the lead appeal arises,

has been disposed of by the High Court, the GoM will record its

satisfaction in each such case and wherever it is certified that there

was a dispute as to amount due which was required to be referred to

the Labour Court, the parties in such writ petitions shall be at liberty

to approach the High Court with an application for recall of the orders

of disposal and for restoration thereof. Once such approach is made,

we have no doubt that the High Court will restore the writ petitions

and hear the same on its own merits.

41. In those cases where the GoM reaches a satisfaction that reference

should not have been made at all, it shall record accordingly and

communicate its decision to the employee concerned. In such a

situation, the employee may seek recovery of any amount allegedly

due to him through other available process of recovery, with limitation

commencing from the date of receipt of the order of the GoM.

42. This judgment shall, however, not permit employers to reopen

proceedings already concluded on the basis of references made by

the specified authorities in terms of the Notification, if in further

proceedings before a higher court the validity of such reference has

not been challenged.

43. We make it abundantly clear that merits of the rival claims with

regard to any amount due or payable have not been examined and

the parties are free to raise all points that are available in law for

being decided by the relevant courts.

44. The GoM is directed to implement this order of revisiting references

as early as possible but not later than 6 (six) months from the date

of its communication to it. Till such time the GoM takes a decision in

respect of each dispute and communicates the same to the parties as

well as the Labour Court, the proceedings pending either before the

Labour Court or before the High Court shall not proceed. Needless to

observe, continuance of further proceedings shall be dependent on

the decisions taken by the GoM.

45. We also make it clear that if any proceeding before the Labour Court

has been closed relying upon the impugned judgments and such

closure is not under challenge, the proceedings will be re-opened if

the GoM refers the dispute to such Labour Court in terms of this order.

46. On the aforesaid terms, the civil appeals stand disposed of.

47. Connected applications, if any, shall also stand closed.

………………………………J.

(DIPANKAR DATTA)

..……….……………………J.

(SHEEL NAGU)

NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 11, 2026.