Journalist Wage Boards in India

The Legal Framework and Judicial Scrutiny of Journalist Wage Boards in India

Introduction

The determination of fair wages for working journalists and other newspaper employees in India has been a subject of continuous legislative effort and judicial review. Central to this endeavor is the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter "WJA, 1955"). This Act provides for the constitution of Wage Boards, statutory bodies tasked with fixing and revising rates of wages for employees in newspaper establishments. The primary objective of this legislative mechanism is to ensure that journalists and other newspaper personnel receive equitable remuneration, recognizing their vital role in a democratic society, while also considering the financial health of the newspaper industry. However, the recommendations of these Wage Boards and the underlying statutory provisions have frequently faced legal challenges from newspaper establishments, leading to significant pronouncements by the Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court of India.

This article undertakes a comprehensive analysis of the legal framework governing journalist Wage Boards in India. It examines the historical evolution of these boards, their composition and functioning, and the key legal principles that have emerged from judicial scrutiny of their operations and recommendations. The analysis draws extensively upon landmark judgments and statutory provisions to elucidate the complex interplay between labor welfare, freedom of the press, and the economic realities of the newspaper industry.

Genesis and Evolution of Wage Boards

The WJA, 1955, was enacted as a benevolent piece of legislation aimed at regulating the conditions of service of working journalists, and was later amended in 1974 to include other newspaper employees.1 A cornerstone of this Act is the provision for establishing Wage Boards to periodically fix or revise wage structures.

The constitutional validity of the WJA, 1955, was first challenged in Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. & Another v. Union Of India & Others.2 The Supreme Court, in its 1958 judgment, upheld the Act's constitutionality, recognizing the legislature's competence to enact such a law for a specific class of employees. However, the Court set aside the decision of the first Wage Board, the Divatia Wage Board (appointed 2nd May 1956, recommendations accepted 10th May 1957), primarily on the ground that it had not adequately considered the newspaper industry's capacity to pay.3 This ruling underscored "capacity to pay" as a critical factor in wage determination. Following this decision, the Working Journalists (Fixation of Rates of Wages) Act, 1958 was passed, providing for a special committee to make recommendations on wage rates.

Since 1955, several Wage Boards have been constituted. For working journalists, six Wage Boards have been formed, and for non-journalist newspaper employees, four such boards have been established.4 Notable among these are the Divatia Wage Board, the Narayana Kurup Wage Board, the Manisana Wage Board, and more recently, the Justice Majithia Wage Boards, whose recommendations (accepted with slight modification by the government on 11th November 2011) became the subject of extensive litigation.5

Constitution and Functioning of Wage Boards

The WJA, 1955, lays down specific provisions for the composition and functioning of Wage Boards for both working journalists (under Section 9) and non-journalist newspaper employees (under Section 13-C).

Composition

A Wage Board typically comprises:6

  • Three persons representing employers in relation to newspaper establishments.
  • Three persons representing working journalists (for a Section 9 Board) or three persons representing non-journalist newspaper employees (for a Section 13-C Board).
  • Four independent persons, one of whom is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court or the Supreme Court, appointed by the Government as the Chairman.

This tripartite structure aims to ensure representation from all stakeholders and an independent perspective in the wage fixation process.

Procedure and Powers

Section 10 of the WJA, 1955, outlines the procedure for Wage Boards.7 Upon constitution, the Board must publish a notice inviting representations from newspaper establishments, working journalists, and other interested parties regarding the fixation or revision of wages. These representations must be in writing and submitted within a specified period. After considering these representations and examining relevant materials, the Board makes its recommendations to the Central Government.8

Section 10(4) mandates that the Board, in making its recommendations, shall have regard to:7

  • The cost of living.
  • The prevalent rates of wages for comparable employment.
  • The circumstances relating to the newspaper industry in different regions of the country.
  • Any other circumstances which the Board may deem relevant.

Role of the Central Government

Under Section 12 of the WJA, 1955, the Central Government, after receiving the Wage Board's recommendations, may, by order published in the Official Gazette, make an order enforcing those recommendations, either as submitted or with such modifications as it deems fit.8 If the government proposes to make any modifications, it must give interested parties an opportunity to make representations about such proposed modifications (Section 12(2)).9 Once the government's order comes into operation, every working journalist or non-journalist newspaper employee becomes entitled to be paid wages at a rate not less than that specified in the order (Section 13).10

Alternative Mechanism: Tribunals

The WJA, 1955, also provides for an alternative mechanism if a Wage Board is unable to function effectively. Sections 13-AA (for working journalists) and 13-DD (for non-journalist newspaper employees), inserted by Act 6 of 1979, empower the Central Government to constitute a one-person Tribunal, consisting of a Judge of a High Court or the Supreme Court, to fix or revise wage rates.11 For instance, Justice Palekar, a former Supreme Court Judge, constituted two such Tribunals in 1979, making recommendations in 1980 which were subsequently accepted by the government.11

Judicial Scrutiny and Key Legal Principles

The recommendations of Wage Boards and the provisions of the WJA, 1955, have been subjected to rigorous judicial scrutiny, leading to the evolution of several key legal principles.

Constitutionality of the WJA, 1955

As mentioned, the Supreme Court in Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. (1958) upheld the Act's constitutional validity.2 This position was reaffirmed decades later in Abp Private Limited And Another v. Union Of India And Others (2014).1 In this case, newspaper managements challenged the Act as ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court dismissed these petitions, holding that the Act is a benevolent legislation aimed at improving the working conditions of journalists and newspaper employees. The Court found that the classification of newspaper employees did not violate Article 14, as it was based on an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the Act’s objective. Furthermore, it held that while the Act affects the press, it does not unduly infringe upon the freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)) or the freedom to carry on business (Article 19(1)(g)), as the measures were reasonable and aimed at ameliorating working conditions rather than curtailing journalistic freedom.1

Capacity to Pay

The "capacity to pay" of newspaper establishments has been a recurring and contentious issue. The Express Newspaper (1958) judgment established its importance.3 In Abp Private Limited (2014), the petitioners argued that the Majithia Wage Boards overlooked this factor. However, the Supreme Court upheld the Boards' reliance on gross revenue as an indicator of capacity to pay, accepting the methodological choices made by the Boards in the absence of more detailed parameters from the establishments themselves.1

The Supreme Court, in Avishek Raja And Others v. Sanjay Gupta (2017) and MADHYA PRADESH PATRAKAR/ GAIR PATRAKAR SANGHTHAN v. RAMESH CHAND AGGARWAL (2017), clarified the concept of "heavy cash losses" that might exempt an establishment from certain payments. The Court stated that such losses must be crippling in nature and consistent over the period stipulated in the Award, distinguishing them from mere financial difficulties.12 13

Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice

Challenges to Wage Board recommendations have often included allegations of procedural irregularities. In Abp Private Limited (2014), the Supreme Court found that the Majithia Wage Boards had followed due process, including issuing questionnaires, allowing representations, and conducting thorough hearings. Allegations of irregularity and lack of independence of certain Board members were dismissed for want of substantial evidence.1

However, procedural lapses can be fatal. In a case concerning the Manisana Wage Board, the Karnataka High Court struck down government notifications relating to a specific media network because no opportunity was given to the petitioner under Section 12(2) of the WJA, 1955, when the Central Government made modifications to the recommendations that increased the petitioner's liability.9

Scope of "Working Journalist" and Employee Classification

The definition of "working journalist" under Section 2(f) of the WJA, 1955, and the classification of employees by Wage Boards have been subjects of interpretation. In Management Of Daily Pratap v. Katibs (1972), the Supreme Court dealt with whether "Katibs" (calligraphists) were "working journalists."14 The Court considered the Wage Board's recommendations, which had included "Calligraphist" under various groups of working journalists and provided a definition.10 The Court noted that the Wage Board's definition of "Calligraphist" as an artist who performs journalistic work and also calligraphs matters did not explicitly require the "principal avocation" test laid down in an earlier case, Management of Express Newspapers Ltd. v. B. Somayajulu,15 for those included by definition.16

Wage Boards also define various roles, such as "Librarian or Index Assistant," for the purpose of wage fixation.17 The Supreme Court in MP Patrakar Sanghthan (2017) affirmed that the benefits of Wage Board Awards are not restricted to regular employees but extend to contractual employees as well, based on the definitions in Sections 2(c), 2(f), and 2(dd) of the Act.13

Variable Pay

The introduction of "variable pay" by the Majithia Wage Board was challenged but upheld by the Supreme Court in Abp Private Limited (2014).1 This concept was further elaborated in Avishek Raja (2017) and MP Patrakar Sanghthan (2017), where the Court noted that variable pay was incorporated to provide fair and equitable treatment to employees and stemmed from the grade pay concept in the Sixth Central Pay Commission Report, aiming to bring newspaper employees on par with Central Government employees to the extent possible.12 13

Freedom of Press v. Wage Regulation

A significant line of argument from newspaper establishments against Wage Board awards involves the contention that enhanced wage bills impinge upon their financial viability, thereby affecting their freedom to operate and, consequently, the freedom of the press guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a), and their freedom to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g). While cases like Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. v. Union Of India (1984)18 and Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India (1972)19 dealt with newsprint control and import duties affecting press economics, the Supreme Court in Abp Private Limited (2014) directly addressed this in the context of wage fixation. The Court held that the WJA, 1955, and the Majithia Wage Board recommendations did not unreasonably restrict these freedoms, emphasizing the Act's benevolent nature and the reasonableness of the wage regulations.1

Implementation and Enforcement of Wage Board Awards

The WJA, 1955, contains provisions to ensure the implementation and enforcement of Wage Board awards as accepted by the Central Government.

Section 13 stipulates that every working journalist (and by extension, non-journalist newspaper employee covered by a similar award) is entitled to be paid wages at a rate not less than that specified in the government's order.10

Section 16 of the Act gives its provisions an overriding effect over any other law, award, agreement, or contract of service. However, a proviso to Section 16(1) and Section 16(2) protects more favorable benefits that an employee might be entitled to under any existing award, agreement, or contract.20

To protect employees from victimization, Section 16-A imposes an embargo on employers from discharging or dismissing any employee by reason of their liability for payment of wages at the revised rates.20

For the recovery of dues, Section 17 of the Act provides a mechanism whereby an employee can apply to the State Government for the recovery of money due from an employer under the Act, which can then be recovered as an arrear of land revenue. In Avishek Raja (2017), the Supreme Court directed that henceforth all complaints regarding non-implementation of the Majithia Wage Board Award should be dealt with through this mechanism.12

Despite these provisions, challenges in implementation persist. The Gujarat High Court in Prashant Arun Dayal v. DB Corp Limited (2014) noted prima facie arm-twisting tactics by a newspaper management to make employees agree not to press for wages as per the Majithia Wage Board and held a writ petition maintainable against the private entity, considering it discharged a public duty.21 Courts have also intervened to direct reinstatement where terminations were found to be aimed at depriving workers of Wage Board benefits.22

Discussion of Reference Materials

The provided reference materials collectively offer a panoramic view of the legal landscape surrounding journalist Wage Boards in India. The Supreme Court judgment in Abp Private Limited (2014) (Snippets 3, 6, 7, 20) serves as a cornerstone, comprehensively addressing the constitutionality of the WJA, 1955, the procedural validity of the Majithia Wage Boards, and substantive issues like "capacity to pay" and "variable pay." It builds upon the foundational ruling in Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. (1958) (cited in Snippets 3, 7, 20), which first upheld the Act but emphasized the "capacity to pay" doctrine.

Snippets detailing the composition (Snippets 6, 7, 20) and procedure (Snippet 8) of Wage Boards, along with the government's role (Snippets 8, 9), illuminate the statutory mechanics. The evolution of these mechanisms, including the creation of Tribunals (Snippets 10, 17), is also evident. Specific interpretations, such as the scope of "working journalist" in Management Of Daily Pratap v. Katibs (Snippets 9, 19, 21) and the classification of employees by Wage Boards (Snippets 11, 12), are detailed in several High Court and Supreme Court rulings.

The challenges related to freedom of the press and economic viability, though not the central theme of all provided materials, are contextualized by Indian Express Newspapers (1985) (Snippet 1) and Bennett Coleman (1972) (Snippet 2), which dealt with other economic regulations affecting newspapers. The practical aspects of implementation, enforcement, and disputes arising therefrom are highlighted in Avishek Raja (2017) (Snippets 15, 16), MP Patrakar Sanghthan (2017) (Snippet 24), and various High Court decisions (Snippets 13, 14, 21, 22). Cases like Statesman Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1976) (Snippet 5) and Management Of The Express Newspapers (P) Ltd., Madras (1962) (Snippet 4) provide broader context on industrial relations within newspaper establishments, though not directly on wage board mechanisms themselves.

Conclusion

The mechanism of Journalist Wage Boards in India, established under the WJA, 1955, represents a significant legislative effort to ensure fair remuneration and decent working conditions for a workforce crucial to the functioning of a vibrant democracy. The Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, has played a pivotal role in interpreting the provisions of the Act, upholding its constitutional validity, and balancing the interests of employees with the financial capacities and fundamental freedoms of newspaper establishments.

Landmark judgments have affirmed the benevolent nature of the WJA, 1955, while consistently emphasizing the need for Wage Boards to adhere to principles of natural justice and to consider relevant factors, most notably the "capacity to pay" of the industry. The courts have scrutinized procedural aspects of Wage Board functioning and have provided clarity on various substantive issues, including employee classification and the introduction of concepts like variable pay.

Despite a robust legal framework and active judicial oversight, challenges persist, particularly in the realm of implementation and enforcement of Wage Board awards. The ongoing tension between ensuring fair wages and safeguarding the economic viability of the press continues to necessitate a delicate balancing act. The evolution of jurisprudence in this area reflects a continuous endeavor to harmonize the socio-economic objectives of labor welfare with the constitutional guarantees afforded to the press, thereby striving to maintain both a free and a fair media landscape in India.

References

  1. Abp Private Limited And Another v. Union Of India And Others (2014) 3 SCC 327 (Supreme Court Of India, 2014). (See Reference Materials 3, 20).
  2. Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. & Another v. Union Of India & Others AIR 1958 SC 578, 1959 SCR 12. (Cited in Reference Materials 3, 7).
  3. Reference Material 7: Abp Private Limited And Another v. Union Of India And Others (Supreme Court Of India, 2014), discussing the Divatia Wage Board and the Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. case.
  4. Reference Material 6: Abp Pvt Ltd & Anr v. Union Of India & Ors (Supreme Court Of India, 2014); Reference Material 20: Abp Private Limited And Another v. Union Of India And Others (2014) 3 SCC 327.
  5. Reference Material 6: Abp Pvt Ltd & Anr v. Union Of India & Ors (Supreme Court Of India, 2014).
  6. Reference Material 3, 6, 7, 17, 20: Citing Abp Private Limited (2014) and All India Reporter Karamchari Sangh (1988) regarding composition.
  7. Reference Material 8: Press Trust Of India And Another v. Union Of India And Others (Supreme Court Of India, 1974), detailing Section 10 of the WJA, 1955.
  8. Reference Material 8: Press Trust Of India And Another v. Union Of India And Others (Supreme Court Of India, 1974).
  9. Reference Material 14: The Statesman Limited v. Union Of India & Anr. (Delhi High Court, 2018), discussing a Karnataka High Court order on Section 12(2).
  10. Reference Material 9: Management Of Daily Pratap v. Katibs (Supreme Court Of India, 1972); Reference Material 12: The Hindu, Madras v. Principal Labour Court, Madras, And Others (Madras High Court, 1975).
  11. Reference Material 10: All India Reporter Karamchari Sangh And Others v. All India Reporter Limited And Others (Supreme Court Of India, 1988); Reference Material 17: All India Reporter Karamchari Sangh And Others v. All India Reporter Limited And Others (1988 SUPP SCC 472).
  12. Reference Material 15: Avishek Raja And Others v. Sanjay Gupta . (Supreme Court Of India, 2017).
  13. Reference Material 24: MADHYA PRADESH PATRAKAR/ GAIR PATRAKAR SANGHTHAN v. RAMESH CHAND AGGARWAL (Supreme Court Of India, 2017).
  14. Reference Material 19: Management Of Daily Pratap v. Katibs (1972 SCC 2 342, Supreme Court Of India, 1972).
  15. Management of Express Newspapers Ltd. v. B. Somayajulu AIR 1964 SC 279. (Cited in Reference Material 21).
  16. Reference Material 21: Management Of Daily Pratap v. Katibs (Supreme Court Of India, 1972).
  17. Reference Material 11: The Management Of Hindu v. Principal Labour Court And Ors. (Madras High Court, 1974); Reference Material 12: The Hindu, Madras v. Principal Labour Court, Madras, And Others (Madras High Court, 1975).
  18. Reference Material 1: Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. And Others v. Union Of India And Others (1985 SCC 1 641, Supreme Court Of India, 1984).
  19. Reference Material 2: Bennett Coleman & Co. And Others v. Union Of India And Others (1972 SCC 2 788, Supreme Court Of India, 1972).
  20. Reference Material 16: Avishek Raja And Others v. Sanjay Gupta . (2017 SCC 8 435, Supreme Court Of India, 2017), discussing Section 16 and 16-A.
  21. Reference Material 22: Prashant Arun Dayal v. DB Corp Limited (Gujarat High Court, 2014).
  22. Reference Material 13: Working Journalists Of Tamil Nadu v. Management Of Tamil Nadu (Madras High Court, 1959).