News

The Supreme Court will hear on September 12 the ABP petition against the recommendation of the Majithia Wage Boards for

newspaper employees.



The Boards had submitted their report on 31 December last year to the Government. Just when the Government was considering the report, for notification, one of the newspaper employers, ABP Pvt. Ltd (which runs the Bengali newspaper Anadabazar Patrika), challenged the recommendations in the Supreme Court at the same time pleading that the newspaper company had not received a copy of the report. The Supreme Court asked the Government to refrain from taking any decision on the implementation of the recommendations of Wage Board for two weeks when it will take up the case for hearing. On receipt of the report the ABP sought more time and the court fixed September 12 to take up the case.



The government has meanwhile asserted in the Supreme Court that Wage Board recommendations on salary hike and other issues for journalists and non-journalists were made on the basis of tripartite talks and are being examined by the government for implementation.



In its response to the writ petition filed by ABP, the Centre said:"When the recommendations are under the consideration of the

government, it is premature to say that it is unjust, unreasonable and violative of the rights of the petitioner."



The Centre said the wage structure had been determined on the basis of the capacity of the employer to pay. The relevant provisions of the Act would not prevent the board from making recommendations for fixing or revision of rates of wages on an all-India basis. Though constituted specifically to fix or revise wages, the board, in its wisdom, made recommendations

on retirement age and other issues, the Centre said.. "After the wage board submitted its’ report, there is no point in questioning the procedure of classification. Since wage boards are tripartite bodies, the recommendations made have to be accepted by all stakeholders as they are fair and reasonable."



However, the Centre said, any recommendation not in accordance with the purpose for which the board was constituted would be examined before issuing any order. It rejected the charge that the wage board recommendations would infringe the petitioner's right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under the Constitution.



AINEF along with other federations in the Confederation is making a strong case to defend the recommendations. Mr. Collin

Gonsalves, senior Supreme Court lawyer, has agreed to appear for the unions.