Supreme Court of India· 12 August 2026
This Court in Samarjit Ghosh v. Bennett Coleman & Co. held that the sub-sections of Section 17 of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 constitute a 'single scheme' — does that decide whether the State Government's Section 17(2) power to refer a dispute can be delegated?
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
No. Since Bennett Coleman's observations were not made in a fact situation where the reference was made by a delegate of the State Government, that decision is an authority for what it actually decided and not what can logically be deduced therefrom; the 'single scheme' language only meant that Section 17 sequentially laid down the steps for recovery.
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 Since the Working Journalists Act now stands repealed, the Court in exercise of Article 142 directed fresh satisfaction rather than put parties back to square one.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 11That all the sub-sections of Section 17 constitute a single scheme is not, therefore, in doubt, and we will, in the course of our judgment address what was meant when the Court used the phrase “single scheme”. Indeed, this Court has recognised in paragraph 6 of Bennett Coleman (supra) that it is for the State Government to call for an adjudication of the dispute by referring the question to the Labour Court. However, given that such observations were not made in a fact situation where reference was made by a delegate of the State Government, the said decision is an authority for what it actually decided and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. Thus, there arises the necessity to consider Section 17 afresh in the light of the facts before us, the submissions advanced and the decisions of the High Courts on the interpretation of Section 17.
Paragraph 29At this stage, we may also deal with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. Placing reliance on Bennett Coleman (supra), it was argued that Section 17 contemplates a single seamless scheme wherein any dispute concerning any amount due to an employee could be referred to the Labour Court and since the Working Journalists Act is a beneficial legislation, the power of delegation should be impliedly read into Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists Act. We are unable to agree with these arguments advanced by the learned counsel. As stated above in paragraph 11, Bennett Coleman (supra) did not deal with a situation wherein the State Government had delegated any power under Section 17(2). What the Court meant when it observed that Section 17 constituted a “single scheme” was that the said section only categorically and sequentially laid down the steps to be followed for the recovery of any amount due to an employee. Additionally, while it is true that the Working Journalists Act is a beneficial legislation which has been enacted for the benefit of employees working in newspaper establishments and should be interpreted in favour of such employees as observed by this Court in All India Reporter Karamchari Sangh v. All India Reporter Private Limited[^18], at the same time, we cannot lose sight of the literal rule of interpretation, and in the absence of any ambiguity while interpreting the statute, the language used by the legislature cannot be modified. On a plain interpretation of Section 17(2), there is absolutely no ambiguity with regard to the requirement that it is the State Government alone which can refer the matter to the Labour Court.
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 →