Supreme Court of India· 12 August 2026

Under the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, though Section 17(1) expressly lets the State Government delegate its function to a specified authority, can the State Government delegate its Section 17(2) power to refer a dispute as to amount due to a Labour Court to any other authority?

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

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.17(2) Working Journalists and …📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

No. Section 17(2) contains no express power of delegation; applying the maxim that the express mention of one excludes the other, such power is unavailable under Section 17(2) and remains with the State Government alone.

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 Since the Working Journalists Act now stands repealed, the Court in exercise of Article 142 directed fresh satisfaction rather than put parties back to square one.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 19Thirdly, on a comparative study of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 17, what draws our immediate attention is the express power conferred on the State Government by the legislature to delegate its function to the specified authority in Section 17(1) and the absence of such power of delegation in Section 17(2). The Latin maxim unius est exclusio alterius comes to mind, which means the express mention of one excludes the other. In the context of the statutory provision under consideration, where the legislature has conferred the power of delegation to the State Government for the function required to be performed as required by sub-section (1) of Section 17 but has chosen to remain silent for the follow-up function, as envisaged in sub-section (2) of Section 17, the presumption to be drawn is that the legislature did not intend the power of delegation to be conferred on the State Government for making a reference to the Labour Court under Section 17(2).

Paragraph 22On the plain language of Section 17, we have no hesitation to hold that though the power of delegation is available to the State Government under sub-section (1) of Section 17, such power is unavailable under sub-section (2) of Section 17.

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, 1963

One 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 account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Where a statutory functionary exercises an administrative power such as making a reference, may it rely on materials vicariously obtained through its officials, and what part of that power can never be delegated absent express legal authorisation?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?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?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections