1958 (3) TMI 96 - SC - Service Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the second respondent under Section 17 of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955.
2. Validity of Section 17 of the Act.
3. Appropriate forum for adjudicating the merits of the first respondent's claim.
4. Competence of the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Second Respondent under Section 17 of the Act:
The petitioner contended that Section 17 of the Act does not empower the State Government or the specified authority to act as a forum for adjudicating the merits of disputed claims. The petitioner argued that the section provides only for a mode of recovery of any money due to a working journalist, not for determining the amount due. The second respondent decided to deal with the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue and concluded that he had jurisdiction to deal with the matter. However, the Supreme Court held that the second respondent had no jurisdiction to entertain the first respondent's application at this stage. The Court reasoned that Section 17 contemplates a summary enquiry of a very limited nature, confined to investigating the narrow point of what amount is actually due to the employee under a decree, award, or other valid order obtained by the employee after establishing his claim.

2. Validity of Section 17 of the Act:
The petitioner alternatively contended that if Section 17 confers jurisdiction on the State Government or the specified authority to adjudicate upon disputed claims, the section would be ultra vires and void. The Supreme Court noted that the larger question about the vires of the Act and the validity of the decision of the Wage Board had already been considered in several petitions filed by several employers. The Court had held that, with the exception of Section 5(1)(a)(iii), the rest of the Act was valid. Therefore, the question about the vires of Section 17 did not need to be reconsidered in the present petition.

3. Appropriate Forum for Adjudicating the Merits of the First Respondent's Claim:
The petitioner urged that even if the second respondent had jurisdiction, he had the discretion to decline to consider the matter and leave it to be tried in the ordinary courts. The second respondent, however, decided to proceed with the enquiry. The Supreme Court held that if Section 17 had given the second respondent discretion, on the merits of the case, it would have been appropriate to refer the matter to the ordinary civil court. The Court emphasized that the legislature did not intend for complicated questions of fact to be dealt with in a summary enquiry under Section 17 without conferring adequate powers on the specified authority.

4. Competence of the Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution:
The petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the vires of Section 17. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the petition was valid and competent in so far as it challenged the vires of Section 17. However, once Section 17 was held to be valid, the competence of the petition under Article 32 was in jeopardy. The Court noted that no question about the fundamental rights of the petitioner was involved, and the grievance against the order passed by the second respondent could not be ventilated by a petition under Article 32. Consequently, the Court directed that the petition fails on this technical ground and must be dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the second respondent had no jurisdiction to entertain the first respondent's application under Section 17 of the Act. However, the petition under Article 32 was dismissed on the technical ground that it was not competent, as no fundamental rights of the petitioner were involved.