TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 785X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts. Sub-section (3) of Section 1, inter alia, provides that the Act applies to every establishment which is a factory engaged in any industry specified in Schedule I and in which twenty or more persons are employed and to any other establishment employing twenty or more persons or class of such establishments which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf. The expression basic wages is defined in Section 2(b) and the expression scheme in Section 2(l). Scheme means the Employees Provident Fund Scheme framed under Section 5 of the PF Act. The Central Government has been empowered to add to Schedule-I any other industry in respect of the employees whereof it is of opinion that a provident fund scheme should be framed under the Act and thereupon the industry so added shall be deemed to be an industry specified in Schedule I for the purposes of the Act. Section 5, inter alia, provides that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, frame a Scheme to be called the Employees Provident Fund Scheme for the establishment of provident funds under the Act for employees or for any class of employees and spec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cluded employee in relation to its application to newspaper establishments and newspaper employees. The relevant part of Paragraph 80 reads as follows : 80. Special provisions in the case of newspaper establishment and employees.: -The Scheme shall, in its application to newspaper establishments and newspaper employees, as defined in Section 2 of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, come into force on the 31st day of December, 1956 and be subject to the modifications mentioned below: (1) In Chapters I to IX, references to industry , factories and employees shall be construed as references to newspaper industry , newspaper establishments and newspaper employees , respectively: (2) excluded employee means,: - (i) an employee who, having been a member of the Fund, has withdrawn the full amount of his accumulations in the Fund under clause (a) or (c) of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 69; (ii) an apprentice. Explanation.- Apprentice means a person who, according to the standing orders applicable to the newspaper establishment concerned, is an apprentice or who is declared to be an apprentice by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioners. It has been further submitted that the mere fact that other newspaper organizations have not challenged the impugned provision is also of no consequence. In order to appreciate the challenge in question, it is also necessary to examine certain provisions of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (for short, the Working Journalists Act ). The Working Journalists Act was enacted to regulate certain conditions of service of working Journalists and other persons employed in the newspaper establishments. Newspaper Employee means any working journalist, and includes any other person employed to do any work in, or in relation to, any newspaper establishment [Sec.2(c)]. The expression newspaper establishment is defined in Section 2(d). The expression non-journalist newspaper employee is defined in Section 2(dd). The working journalists and those who are not journalists but are employed to do any work in, or in relation to, any newspaper establishment, are newspaper employees. Chapter II of the Working Journalists Act, inter alia, deals with conditions of service of working journalists, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ke Steel, Heavy Engineering and other cash rich industries and if, at all, there is a case for providing a lesser burden it is newspaper industry which deserves it as a class. Instead of that, a heavy burden has been imposed upon a weaker section of the industries, viz., newspaper industry. The petitioners have also faintly suggested violation of right of freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) contending that in view of additional burden, it becomes very difficult to maintain price line by keeping the price of the newspaper at certain level without increasing it and even a marginal increase would affect the number of readers, particularly, in a country like India with a large number of economically weaker sections. This reduction in the access of newspapers to the members of the public is a matter that is fraught with serious consequences because it not merely affects the fundamental rights of the petitioners to disseminate the news freely but it also affects the right of the members of the public to know, which is the essence of democracy. The contention is that any action which has effect of increasing the price of newspaper has very serious ramific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ples under Article 14 of the Constitution are well settled. It is not necessary to burden this judgment with various decisions on the subject of arbitrariness and the classification, except to notice the principles laid In Re The Special Courts Bill, 1978 [(1979) 1 SCC 381] as under : (5) By the process of classification, the State has the power of determining who should be regarded as a class for purposes of legislation and in relation to a law enacted on a particular subject. This power, no doubt, in some degree is likely to produce some inequality; but if a law deals with the liberties of a number of well-defined classes, it is not open to the charge of denial of equal protection on the ground that it has no application to other persons. Classification thus means segregation in classes which have a systematic relation, usually found in common properties and characteristics. It postulates a rational basis and does not mean herding together of certain persons and classes arbitrarily. (6) The law can make and set apart the classes according to the needs and exigencies of the society and as suggested by experience. It can recognise even degree of evil, but the classificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after 26th August, 1957. Earlier, when the constitutionality of the said provision was questioned before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on the ground that it violated Article 14 of the Constitution, the petition was dismissed by the High Court [Chintapalli Achaiah v. P. Gopalakrishna Reddy [AIR 1966 AP 51] observing that the hardship caused to the tenants by the exemption given in the case of buildings constructed after 26th August, 1957 was short-lived and the concession should be tolerated for a short while. This Court noticed that the exemption had continued for more than a quarter of a century and the landlords who earned their exemption under Section 32(b) had continued to enjoy for a long number of years the freedom to indulge in malpractices which the Act intended to check while others are governed by the Act. In view of Section 32(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Act, there were to sets of buildings in every area in which the Act applied \026 (1) those to which the Act applied; and (2) those which are exempted under Section 32(b). It was noticed that the buildings to which the Act was applicable are aged more than 26 years and those to which it was not applicable are aged abou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 32(b) of the Act, therefore, does not any longer bear any relationship to the object, since the buildings which are exempted have already come into existence and their owners have realised a major part of their investment. In Motor General Traders case, two answers were given to the contention that since the impugned provision has been in existence for over 23 years and its validity has once been upheld by the High Court, this Court should not pronounce upon its validity at this late stage. First, the very fact that nearly 23 years are over from the date of enactment and the discrimination is allowed to be continued unjustifiably for such a long time is a ground of attack pointing out that what should have been just an incentive has become a permanent bonanza in favour of those who constructed building subsequent to August 26, 1957; there being no justification for the continuance of the benefit to a class of persons without any rational basis whatsoever, the evil effects flowing from the impugned exemption have caused more harm to the society than one could anticipate. What was justifiable during a short period has turned out to be a case of hostile discrimination by lapse o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tory, this Court rejected the contention that since the provisions had been unsuccessfully challenged earlier and held the field for a long time, the same do not deserve to be invalidated. In the present case it is not the contention that only temporary relief was granted to the employees of the newspaper industry. Apart from this, the employees of newspaper industry have always been treated as a class apart, an aspect which we have dealt in later part of the judgment.. Moreover, the mere fact that the similar benefit even after lapse of about half a century has not been given to the employees of other industries will not make the benefit given to the newspaper industry discriminatory. The principle that a provision which may be constitutional when enacted may become unconstitutional later due to changed scenario, has no applicability whatsoever to the present case. Undoubtedly, the classification cannot be arbitrary. It has to be rational and must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. The classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia. There is no difficulty in accepting these principles relied upon by Mr. Dewan. The difficulties g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd there is no upper limit..... It will depend on what the breach of the Fundamental Right and remedy claimed are and how the delay arose In the present case, there is no satisfactory explanation for delay of over forty five years. The petition can be rejected by declining to exercise discretion in favour of petitioners only on this count. Further, as already noticed, a provision though constitutional when enacted, may with passage of time become unconstitutional, but the said principle has no applicability to the present case. The contention here is that the impugned provision was unconstitutional from its inception in the year 1956 since there was never any legal basis for classification of newspaper establishments as a separate class. We have, also examined hereafter this contention as well. Mr.Dewan contends that newspaper industry cannot be singled out for harsh treatment. Reliance is placed upon observation made in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. Ors. v. Union of India Ors. [(1985) 1 SCC 641 at 685 para 66] to the effect that levy of tax on newspaper industry should not be overburden on newspapers which constitute the Fourth Estate of the country ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a different context. In any case, the decision, far from supporting the contention of the petitioners, in fact, to an extent lends support to the benefit that was given to the employees of the newspaper industry in the year 1956 as a result of the impugned provision. It has to be remembered that in spreading information, the employees of newspapers industry play dominant role and considering the employees of newspaper industry as a class , this benefit was extended almost at the same time when the Working Journalist Act was enacted. Thus, there can be no question of any adverse effect on the freedom of press. The financial burden on employer, on facts as herein, cannot be said to be a harsh treatment . The contention that now the petitioners are unable to bear the financial burden which they have been bearing for the last over forty five years is wholly irrelevant. It is for petitioners to manage their affairs if they intend to continue with their activity as newspaper establishment. In Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. Anr. v. The Union of India Ors. [(1959) SCR 12], the question as to the vires of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could a question with regard to them be raised by others who were admittedly governed by the Act. It, therefore, considered the question as to the tenure of appointment and the minimum period of notice for termination of the employment of the working journalists, hours of work, provision for leave, retirement benefits and gratuity, made certain recommendations and suggested legislation for the regulation of the newspaper industry which should embody its recommendations with regard to notice period, bonus, minimum wages, Sunday rest, leave and provident fund and gratuity. Almost immediately after the report of the Press Commission, Parliament passed the Working Journalists (Industrial Disputes) Act, 1955 (1 of 1955). It was an Act to apply the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the working journalists. The application of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the working journalist was not, however, deemed sufficient to meet the requirements of the situation. There was considerable hesitation in Parliament for the implementation of the recommendations of the Press Commission. Ultimately, the Government introduced a Bill on 30th November, 1955 in Rajya Sabha being Bill No.13 of 1955. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amelioration of their conditions of service must necessarily affect the newspaper establishments and have its repercussions on the freedom of press. The impugned Act can, therefore, be legitimately characterized as a measure which affects the press and if the intention or the proximate effect and operation of the Act was such as to bring it within the mischief of Article 19(1)(a), it would certainly be liable to be struck down. The real difficulty, however, in the way of the petitioners is that whatever be the measures enacted for the benefit of the working journalists neither the intention nor the effect and operation of the impugned Act is to take away or abridge the right of freedom of speech and expression enjoyed by the petitioners. The question of violation of right of freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) in the present case on account of additional burden as a result of impugned provision does not arise. An attack was also made in the said case to the constitutional validity of the Act on the ground that it selected the working journalists for favoured treatment by giving them additional benefits which other persons in similar or compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al v. Anwar Ali Sarkar [(1952) S.C.R. 284], Kathi Raning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra [(1952) S.C.R. 435], Lachmandas Kewalaram Ahuja v. The State of Bombay [(1952) S.C.R. 710], Quasim Razvi v. The State of Hyderabad [(1953) S.C.R. 581], and Habeeb Mohamad v. The State of Hyderabad [(1953) S.C.R. 661]. It is, therefore, not necessary to enter upon any lengthy discussion as to the meaning, scope and effect of the article in question. It is now well-established that while article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. In order, however, to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and (ii) that that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. The classification may be founded on different bases; namely, geographical, or according to objects or occupations or the like. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt to working journalists but what is to be seen is, that the press industry was held to be a class by itself. The definition of newspaper employee takes into its fold all the employees who are employed to do any work in, or relation to, any newspaper establishment. The decision in Express Newspaper s case amply answers the main contention about the Press Industry having been singled out, against the petitioners. This decision also holds that to provide social welfare legislation and grant benefit, a beginning had to be made somewhere without embarking on similar legislation in relation to other industries. The fact that even after about half a century similar benefit has not been extended to the employees of any other industry, will not result in invalidation of benefit given to employees of press industry. It is not for us to decide when, if at all, to extend the benefit to others. In view of aforesaid, we are unable to accept the contention that the impugned provision is violative of Article 14 on the ground that it singles out newspaper industry by excluding income test only in regard to the said industry. Apart from the fact that it may not be always possible to grant to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
