1. On the last date, the statement of Mr. M.R. Mishra, Chief Administrative Officer of the Press Trust of India (PTI) to the effect that PTI has no objection to the Appellant-Union and/or their individual members invoking the jurisdiction of the Industrial Courts/Tribunals at Delhi was taken on record. He had also categorically stated that the PTI would not raise any objection with respect to territorial jurisdiction in this regard. Though Mr. Mishra had also stated that the respondents were agreeable to the Central Government making a reference of the disputes to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT); today, Mr. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, the appropriate government would be the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) and not the Central Government. In this regard, he has firstly drawn our attention to the notice of retrenchment issued by the respondents to the employees of PTI. The relevant extract of one such retrenchment notice dated 29.09.2018 issued to Mr. K. Ramesh has been read out, which reads as under:—
“As you are aware, PTI being a news agency has a structure of central command, control and supervision from Delhi. As such compliance of prescribed procedures is being done with the Government of NCT of Delhi. However, as you are currently situated at Hyderabad due compliance of the retrenchment process is additionally being done at the office of the appropriate authority there Enclosed please find a copy of the declaration of the authorities which is being made simultaneously with the dispatch of this communication. The contents of the same form an integral part and parcel of the present letter. You will find that the statement of reasons for retrenchment are an annexure to the compliance filing done.”
2. Mr. Patwalia has also drawn our attention to the stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit filed before the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 596/2018, more specifically to Para 4(e) wherein the PTI has averred as under:—
“e. That the Respondent PTI in compliance of Clause (c) of Section 25F read with Rule 76 of the Act duly notified the Appropriate Authority in the prescribed Form along with the detailed Statement of Reasons and other documents which included retrenchment letters, list of retrenched employees', details of bank transfer of notice pay and retrenchment compensation etc. etc. It would be pertinent to mention here that Respondent PTI being a news agency having a structure of central command control and supervision from Delhi, compliance of the prescribed procedure was done at Delhi with the Government of NCT of Delhi. However, as an-abundant caution, compliance were done at the place where the retrenched employee was posted at that point of time under the applicable state rules of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Copy of the Statement of Reasons for Retrenchment is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R6. Copy of Letter dated 29-09-2018 along with Notice under Clause (c) of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and postal receipt for dispatch sent to Appropriate Authorities at Delhi with respect to retrenchment at Delhi Office of PTI and all offices of PTI is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R7 (Colly).”
3. Mr. Patwalia further submits that in fact, the appellant-Union always understood that the GNCTD was the appropriate Government. This is evident from the appellant-Union's communication dated 04.10.2018 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Delhi District, Government of NCT of Delhi. By way of this communication, the Deputy Commissioner, GNCTD was requested to take appropriate action against the PTI management in order to protect the employees of the PTI. Acting upon the said communication, the GNCTD called upon the respondent/Management for conciliation, however, vide their communication dated 08.10.2018 addressed to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, the appellant-Union sought to withdraw their earlier representation dated 04.10.2018. He further submits that the respondent/PTI has already made a statement before this Court, which he reiterates, that no objection regarding jurisdiction would be taken by the PTI in case disputes, if any, surviving after the process of conciliation are referred to the Industrial Tribunal constituted by the GNCTD. He submits that the procedure of conciliation as laid down in the Industrial Disputes Act(ID Act), should be gone through by the parties as it is quite likely that many of the retrenched employees may settle with the Management during conciliation and may not even proceed to raise any disputes.
4. On the other hand, the submission of Mr. Singhvi and Mr. Kamat is that keeping in view that employees all over the country are affected as also the fact that questions of national importance arise with regard to the applicability of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955; the constitution of a National Tribunal by the Central Government under Section 7B of the ID Act would be fully justified in the present case.
5. Mr. Singhvi further submits that another important issue which arises for consideration in the present case is regarding the applicability of the Factories Act, 1948 to the PTI as, according to the appellant, it is engaged in a manufacturing process and, therefore, it would be amenable to the Factories Act, 1948. He, therefore, contends that the Central Government should consider the constitution of National Tribunals under section 7B of the ID Act.
6. From the aforesaid, it is clear to us that in case the appellant-Unions were to invoke the jurisdiction of the GNCTD for resolution of industrial disputes, there would be no impediment or difficulty with regard to the jurisdiction. Though the appellant in LPA No. 308/2020 (the Federation of PTI Employees Union) had not invoked the jurisdiction of the GNCTD, unlike the appellant in LPA No. 304/2020; the position, in our opinion, would remain the same. We, therefore, see no impediment in the disputes between the parties being resolved in Delhi by an Industrial Tribunal constituted under the ID Act by the GNCTD.
7. Mr. Kamat and Mr. Singhvi, however, vehemently contend that in the facts of the present case, the Central Government should consider the aspect of constitution of a National Tribunal. In our view, this is an issue which calls for consideration by the Central Government and we do not deem it appropriate to issue any direction to the Central Government in this regard or to direct it to constitute a National Tribunal for adjudication of the disputes sought to be raised by the appellant. However, we are of the opinion that the Central Government should consider the appellant's plea in this regard and take a decision, which should be communicated to the Court on the next date.
8. List on 25.03.2021. We make it clear that, in case, the Central Government does not constitute a National Tribunal in terms of Section 7B as prayed for by the appellants, it would be open to the appellants to invoke the jurisdiction of the GNCTD.
9. Let notice issue to the GNCTD through its Standing Counsel (Civil). Copy of this order shall be also served on the learned standing counsel for the GNCTD.