text stringlengths 5 5.67k |
|---|
Olson, ; The Act also violates the right guaranteed by article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution as it places unreasonable restraint on the petitioners ' freedom to carry on business (Chintaman Rao vs The State of Madhya Pradesh, ; ; cited with approval in Dwarka Prasad Laxmi Narain vs The State of Uttar Pradesh, ; and Ch... |
Tika Ramjidas vs State of U. P. ; ; The State of Madras vs V. G. Row, ; , 606 607; The State of West Bengal vs Subodh Gopal Bose, [1954] section (C. R. 587; Virendra vs State of Punjab, A. 1.R. 1957 section C. 896). Ratio |
The law imposing restrictions on fundamental rights must be reasonable not only in its substantive content but in its procedural content as well (Dr. N. B. Khare vs State of Delhi, ; ; Ourbachan vs State of Punjab, ; The relevant criteria for the fixation of wages were not laid down in section 9 (1) of the Act. Ratio |
The criteria for the fixation of wages laid down in the Act were only relevant for fixing minimum rates of wages, though the word " minimum" used in the Bill 13 of 1955 as introduced in the Rajya Sabha was subsequently dropped before the Bill became the Act. Ratio |
It was not made incumbent on the Wage Board to consider the capacity of industry to pay as an essential criterion or a major factor in 3 18 fixing wages. Ratio |
The other circumstances, viz., " any other circumstances which to the Board may seem relevant " mentioned in section 9 (1) of the Act was left to be determined by the Board on its subjective satisfaction which could not be controlled by any higher authority. Ratio |
The Act thus enables the Board to exercise arbitrary powers in regard to the same and that is unreasonable by itself (Thakur Raghbir Singh vs Court of Wards, Ajmer; , ; R. M. Seshadri vs District Magistrate, Tanjore, ; The procedure to be followed by the Wage Board was not laid down in the Act (c. f. The Bombay Industr... |
The Wage Board was not exercising legislative functions but functions, which were quasi judicial in character. Ratio |
The intention of the Legislature was to assimilate the Wage Board as much as possible to an Industrial Tribunal constituted under the . Ratio |
If it is held that section 11 of the Act is an enabling provision, and gave the Board the arbitrary discretion whether to exercise the same powers and follow the same procedure of an Industrial Tribunal or any procedure it liked, it is unreasonable. Ratio |
The provisions of sections 2 (f), 3, 4, 5, 8 to 11, 12, 14, 15 and 17 place restraints on newspaper establishments which would have the effect of destroying the business of the petitioners. Ratio |
The right to impose restrictions on the right to carry on business under article 19 (6) conferred no power on the Legislature to destroy the business itself (Stone vs Farmers Loan and Trust Co., ; ; Municipal Corporation of the City of Toronto, vs Virgo, ; A. G.,for Ontario vs A. G. for the Dominion, [1896] A. C. 348).... |
The Act is discriminatory in character and violates article 14 of the Constitution. Ratio |
It is restricted in its scope to a selected section of newspaper employees. Ratio |
it gives them the benefit of the wage fixation by devising machinery in the form of a Pay Commission without the existence of any industrial dispute, without prescribing the major criterion of capacity to pay to be taken into consideration; (Britannia Bldg. Ratio |
and Iron Co. Ltd., , 654; Union Drug Co. Ltd., , 767; Report of the Committee on Fair Wages, pp. Ratio |
13 15, paras. Ratio |
21, 23 and 24); or following the procedure prescribed by the , even in disregard of principles of audi alteram partem. Ratio |
The employers of the newspaper establishments are subjected to discriminatory treatment by the Act in that (1) they are singled out from all other industrial employers who are covered by the ordinary law regulating industrial relations under the ; (ii) they have been saddled with new burdens in regard to a section of t... |
The classification made by the impugned Act is arbitrary and unreasonable in so far as it removes the newspaper employers vis a vis the working journalists from the general operation of the . Ratio |
The right to apply to Supreme Court for enforcement of a fundamental right under article 32 is itself a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution (Ramesh Thapar V. The State of Madras, ; , 597). Ratio |
The right to claim a writ of certiorari against a decision is dependent on the fact that the impugned decision on its face is a " speaking order ". Ratio |
(Rex vs Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal, Ex parte Shaw, 1, affirmed by the Court of Appeal in ; ; A. K. Gopalan vs The State of Madras; , , 243). Ratio |
The Act 20 contravenes article 32 of the Constitution because it does not provide for giving any reasons for the decision to be made by the Wage Board. Ratio |
Decision of the Wage Board is illegal and void because (1) the Act under which it is made was ultra vires (Mohd Yasin vs Town Area Committee of Jalalabad, ; ; Himatalal Harilal Mehta vs State of U. P., [1954] section C.R. 1122); (ii) the decision itself infringes the fundamental rights of the petitioners (Bidi Supply C... |
The procedure followed by the Board offended the principles of natural justice and is therefore invalid. Ratio |
It did not follow the procedure of ail Industrial Tribunal even though on two occasions, viz., when the questionnaire was issued and when a number of newspapers failed to reply to the questionnaire, the Board asserted that it had the powers of an Industrial Tribunal. Ratio |
Neither in the questionnaire nor at any time thereafter were concrete proposals submitted by the Board to the newspaper establishments. Ratio |
The classification of newspapers on the basis of gross revenue is contrary to the provisions of the Act. Ratio |
In the gross revenue which is earned by newspaper establishments advertisement revenue ordinarily forms a large bulk of such revenue and unless the proportion of advertisement revenue to the gross revenue were taken into consideration it would not be possible to form a correct estimate of the financial status of a news... |
Profit and loss of newspaper establishment should be the proper test and if that 21 test were adopted it would give an altogether different picture. Ratio |
The wages which are normally fixed after a general inquiry ' applicable to the whole industry have always been minimum wages. Ratio |
Assessment of a wage level and scale only by reference to gross revenue was erroneous. Ratio |
The decision suffers from another major defect in computing gross revenue not for each newspaper but collectively for the Organization which might be running a number of papers. Ratio |
The result of this mode of calculation was that an organisation publishing a large number of papers might well fall within the top class by virtue of its gross revenue although each one of the papers taken individually might be running at a loss. Ratio |
This process of considering the multiple units or a chain of newspapers as one establishment has affected the petitioners adversely and is unauthorised by the Act. Ratio |
The Wage Board was not authorised by the Act to fix the wages of working journalists in relation to the whole industry but could do so only in respect of individual establishments as will appear from the definition of a " newspaper establishment " given in section 2(d) of the Act. Ratio |
An establishment can only mean " an establishment " and not a group of them, even though such an individual establishment may produce or publish one or more newspapers. Ratio |
(Pravat Kumar vs W. T. C. Parker, A. 1. Ratio |
R. , 118; section R. V. Service Co. Ltd. vs State of Madras,A. 1. Ratio |
R. , 121 122). Ratio |
The decision of the Wage Board is illegal as it does not disclose that the capacity to pay of the individual establishment was ever taken into consideration. Ratio |
There is nothing on record to suggest that both as regard rates of wages and the scales of pay the Wage Board ever took into account as to what the impact of its decision would be on the capacity of the industry to pay either as a whole or region wise. Ratio |
Even as regards the fixation of wages the Wage Board does 22 not seem to have taken into account the other provisions of the Act which conferred upon the working journalists other benefits which would affect the paying capacity of the newspaper establishments. Ratio |
Furthermore the working Journalists constitute only 1/5 of the total staff employed by various newspaper establishments. Ratio |
If the conditions of service of working journalists were to be improved by the Wage Board the other employees who form 85% were bound to be restive and likely to raise industrial disputes for betterment of their conditions of service. Ratio |
This would impose an additional financial burden on the newspaper establishments and would substantially affect their capacity to pay. Ratio |
The Wage Board exceeded its power in giving retrospective operation to its decision. Ratio |
The Wage Board had acted illegally in fixing scales of pay for a period of three years when the Act does not give it such authority. Ratio |
Further the Wage Board was handicapped for want of Cost of Living Index. Ratio |
K. M. Munshi, L. K. Jha, section section Shukla, Balbhadra Prasad Sinha and R. J. Joshi, for the petitioners in Petitions Nos.99 to 101 of 1957. Ratio |
The freedom of the Press is a fundamental personal right of the petitioners. Ratio |
It rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public. Ratio |
This is a " preferred right ". Ratio |
The purpose of the constitutional guarantee of free speech is to prevent public authority from assuming the guardianship of the public mind (Thomas vs Collins, 89 L. Ed. 430; The Supreme Court and the right of Free Speech and Press Annotation in ; Beauhairnais vs Illinois; , , 943dissenting opinion of Douglas, J.). Rat... |
While the Press enjoys no immunity from the application of the general laws relating to industrial relations, an Act or any 23 of its provision would violate the right of free speech and expression if it lays a direct and preferential burden on the freedom of the Press ; if it has a tendency to curtail circulation and ... |
The Act singles out the Press for levying upon it a direct burden which is excessive and so restrictive as to be prohibitive. Ratio |
It begets a class of workers whose benefits and rights are given a preferential enforceability parallel to that of a public debt. Ratio |
The impugned Act by section 9 leaves, in violation of the Constitution, the fixation of wages to an agency invested with arbitrary and uncannily power to impose an indeterminate burden on the wage structure of the Press, such employer and employee relations at its discretion as it thinks fit, and such burden and restri... |
The Act and the decision of the Wage Board, which under the Act becomes enforceable as a part of it, have imposed an excessive and prohibitive burden which will have a tendency to curtail the revenue and restrict circulation which is the means of imparting information and giving free expression to speech, impose a pena... |
The Act has created an impossible situation in which the petitioner could only say " I cannot live, I cannot die and I cannot commit suicide ". Ratio |
Even if the petitioners were to close down their business and dispose of all their assets they would not be in a position to meet all the liabilities. Ratio |
The Constitution does not permit any abridgment of the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression unless it falls within the categories of restrictions mentioned in article 19(2). Ratio |
When the permitted restrictions were incorporated special care was taken by the framers of the Constitution to see that 24 freedom of speech was protected and that the right should not be at the mercy of the legislature which might want to impose excessive burden on the Press. Ratio |
It is for this reason that the " Public interest " restriction in article 19(6) appearing against the fundamental right in article 19(1)(g) is not to be found in article 19(2).A distinction has to be drawn between the Constitution of U. section A. and India. Ratio |
What is known as the " due process of law " in America has been specifically omitted from the Constitution of India. Ratio |
In U. section A. the " due process " clause enabled the Supreme Court to read into the Constitution any doctrine restrictive of the fundamental right, e. g., in the 1930 's the U. section Supreme Court had held that statutory fixation of minimum wage in the newspaper industry was violation of fundamental rights of free... |
Printing Office, pp. 792, 988). Ratio |
The Indian Constitution does not permit restriction of freedom of speech except under the limitation set by article 19(2). Ratio |
Restrictions that could be held intra vires in respect of other industries would still be ultra vires under article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution in respect of the Press industry because of the special privilege of right of free speech. Ratio |
Any direct restriction placed by Government on the Press would be violation of article 19(1)(a), and therefore even if the Government had sought to impose a minimum wage for the Press by direct legislation it would have been equally unconstitutional. Ratio |
This illegality, however, would not attach to the finding of an adjudicatory machinery such as was contemplated under the . Ratio |
Where Government provided a media for the settlement of disputes and claims between citizen,,, and citizens there was no question of any contravention of fundamental rights which were protected against governmental encroachment. Ratio |
25 The various sections of the Act have the effect of placing restrictions on the press which would in evitably have the effect of restricting the freedom of speech and expression in contravention of article 19 (1) (a). Ratio |
The Act has created a privileged class of working journalists above the other workers either in this country or anywhere also, above contract and above the law of the land. Ratio |
The Wage Board has exceeded its authority and has arrived at conclusions and findings which restricts the fundamental rights of the petitioners. Ratio |
The Act authorizes the Central Government to constitute a Wage Board for fixing rates of wages. Ratio |
This does not authorize the Board to enter into the wider question of determination of scales of pay. Ratio |
Fixing could only mean fixing with reference to a point of time. Ratio |
The Legislature did not contemplate that single wage should determine the wage scales, for all time to come The whole framework of the Act was based on minimum wage and the sudden removal of the word " minimum " has caused all these difficulties. Ratio |
" Rates of wages " and not " scales of wages", the Wage Board was to consider. Ratio |
The term " rates of wages applies only to a particular point of time. Ratio |
[Sinha, J. Section 9 (2) of the Act says that the Board may fix "rates of wages for time work and for piece work ". Ratio |
They cannot have any reference to scales. Ratio |
The same words in the statute mean the same thing. Ratio |
They cannot mean different things in different sections.] Yes. Ratio |
These words are used again and again in the Act. Ratio |
In the Minimun Wages Act, the Payment of Wages Act, etc., where the same expression " rates of wages " is used to indicate a wage fixed in time and amount. Ratio |
The Wage Board has exceeded its power in fixing the scales of wages and increments and thereby places a fetter on the Press, not contemplated by the Act. Ratio |
The Act and the Wage Board have disregarded all considerations which according to authority and law were germane to the proper fixation of wages without 4 26 placing restrictions on fundamental rights. Ratio |
Even the Minimum Wages Act provides for periodical reviews, and proposals for minimum wages should be notified for inviting the opinions. Ratio |
The decision of the Wage Board has been arrived at in violation of the procedure prescribed by section 11 of the impugned Act and in violation of the rules of natural justice and is thus illegal. Ratio |
The Wage Board has been unreasonable in basing wages on revenue from all sources rather than on the revenue which the working journalists contributed by their labour. Ratio |
Classification of newspapers on the basis of the gross revenue of all papers run by an Organisation and fixation of wages on such classification has led to results which are absurd and discriminatory in effect and ignore the principle enunciated by the Act itself. Ratio |
As an example, take the case of a paper with small circulation in Kutch which is placed in a higher category than a paper in Bombay simply because the former is part of a larger Organisation. Ratio |
The Wage Board has not taken care to remain within the terms of the impugned Act, namely, that the wages should be based on regional consideration. Ratio |
The Wage Board has given its decision in complete disregard of the newspapers ' capacity to pay. Ratio |
it did not take proper care in framing its decision. Ratio |
Lack of such care in framing its decision makes it unreasonable and hence restrictive of fundamental rights. Ratio |
The Wage Board has exceeded its authority by giving retrospective effect to the wage structure devised by it. Ratio |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.