Supreme Court of India· 12 August 2026
Since the principles of ratification do not apply to the exercise of powers conferred under statutory provisions, could the Government of Maharashtra's Section 17(2) delegation under the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 — which fell in grave error — still be given effect for references already made before the Notification was declared bad?
SUDHIR & ORS v. HEAD OF HUMAN RESOURCE, DAINIK BHASKAR GROUP (D.B. CORP. LTD.) & ORS
2026 INSC 834 · SLP (C) NO. 4964 OF 2023
Coram: Dipankar Datta; Sheel Nagu
Answer
Not through ratification, which this Court in Marathwada University held inapplicable to statutory powers; but since the specified authorities did not per se act without jurisdiction when references were made under the Notification, the situation was found better than one where ratification would apply. In exercise of Article 142, the Court directed the State Government to revisit each reference and record fresh, independent satisfaction, rather than put parties back to square one.
Headnote
Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 — s.17(1) — s.17(2) — Delegation of power to refer — Constitution of India, 1950 — Art.142 — Directions —
Working Journalists Act, 1955 — s.17(2) — Delegation of power to refer — Express mention excludes the other —
Held: Section 17(1) lets the State Government delegate to a specified authority its power to satisfy itself and issue a certificate; Section 17(2) carries no such power. Under the rule that express mention of one excludes the other, only the State Government may refer a dispute as to amount due to a Labour Court. (¶19, 22)
Working Journalists Act, 1955 — s.17(2) — Notification of delegation — GoM fell in grave error —
Held further: The GoM fell in grave error in delegating its Section 17(2) power by the 2016 notification, though the specified authorities did not per se act without jurisdiction when the references were made under it. Since the Working Journalists Act now stands repealed, the Court in exercise of Article 142 directed fresh satisfaction rather than put parties back to square one. (¶32, 36, 38)
Constitution of India, 1950 — Art.142 — Directions on pending references — Recovery and limitation —
Held further: The impugned High Court judgments do not terminate pending Labour Court proceedings; the GoM must revisit every reference within six months, and where fresh satisfaction is not recorded the employee may pursue other recovery remedies, limitation commencing from receipt of the GoM's order. Civil appeals disposed of. (¶37, 41, 44, 46)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 35We are not unmindful of the decision of this Court in Marathwada University v. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan[^24], where it was held that the principles of ratification apparently do not have any application with regard to exercise of powers conferred under statutory provisions.
Paragraph 36However, the said decision is distinguishable because of the peculiar facts of these appeals. The Notification of the GoM authorised the stated specified authorities to make references to the relevant Labour Courts, subject to the necessary satisfaction being reached that a dispute did exist. It is in pursuance of such notification that references have been made to Labour Courts all over the State of Maharashtra by the specified authorities. On the dates the references were made, the specified authorities did not per se act without jurisdiction. The references were backed by the Notification. Little did the specified authorities know that conferment of power on them by the GoM would be assailed later and the Notification declared bad. In a sense, this is a situation better than the one where the principles of ratification apply (enabling an unauthorised action of an agent being validated as a result of ratification by the principal). What has essentially to be enquired is, whether a dispute did exist under the Working Journalists Act, which could have legitimately been referred to the Labour Court for resolution upon a satisfaction reached by the GoM.
Paragraph 38In exercise of the power conferred on this Court by Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we further direct that the GoM in the appropriate department shall revisit all references made to the Labour Courts by the respective specified authorities. Upon an independent exercise being undertaken in each case and uninfluenced by the satisfaction reached by the specified authorities, the GoM shall be under an obligation to record fresh satisfaction that there existed a dispute as to amount due which was worthy of being referred. In those cases where satisfaction is reached, a fresh reference shall be made by the GoM outlining the terms for the same to be decided in accordance with law. The proceedings shall, however, be taken forward from the stage the Labour Courts have reached. If further evidence is required to be led by any of the parties consequent upon the fresh reference, the Labour Court shall offer an opportunity to the party seeking to lead further evidence and likewise, allow the opposite party to lead evidence in defence.
Acts & Sections
s.17(2) Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955s.17(1) Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955s.17(3) Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955Art.142 Constitution of IndiaRule 36 Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Rules, 1957s.10(1) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s.94-A Employees State Insurance Act, 1948s.85-B(1) Employees State Insurance Act, 1948s.481(1)(a) Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949s.21 Major Port Trusts Act, 1963One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of SUDHIR & ORS v. HEAD OF HUMAN RESOURCE, DAINIK BHASKAR GROUP (D.B. CORP. LTD.) & ORS — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →