CASE NO.: Transfer Case (civil) 10 of 1990 PETITIONER: Indian Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. etc. etc. RESPONDENT: Union of India and others etc. etc. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/09/1994 BENCH: Kuldip Singh & P.B. Sawant & N.P. Singh JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
ORDER
P.B. Sawant, J.
1. In all these matters, the petitioner-establishments have challenged two
orders viz., Nos. 683(E) and 684(E), both dated 31.8.1989, (hereinafter
referred to as ‘Orders’) issued by the Central Government under Section 11
of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of
Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as
the ‘Act’) accepting and giving effect to the recommendations of the Wage
Board Report dated 26.5.1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Report’) on
various grounds. Order No. 683(E) deals with wage-scales and grades, and
Order No. 684(E) deals with House Rent Allowance and City Compensatory
Allowance. The Wage Board was constituted by the respondent 1-Union
Government in 1985 under the chairmanship of Shri Bachawat and hence the
Report given by it is known as Bachawat Award. Both the orders are
challenged on the ground of violation of the fundamental rights under
Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
The petitioners also challenge the amendment of Sections 2(d) and 10(4) of
the Act brought about by Sections 2(i) and 3 of the Working Journalists and
other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous
Provisions (Amendment) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “Amending
Act”) by adding an Explanation at the end of Section 10(4) and a Schedule
at the end of the Act as being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)
(g) of the Constitution.
2. In order to appreciate the challenges, it is necessary to state a few
background facts.
The Act as it was initially enacted was titled the Working Journalists
(Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (the
‘original Act’) since it was confined to the service conditions of the
working journalists only. By an amendment brought into force on 21.12.1974,
by the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of
Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 1974, the scope of
the original Act was expanded to include the other newspaper employees.
Under the original Act, which was confined to the working journalists only,
a Board headed by Shri Divatia was appointed under Section 9 of the Act,
and the said Board gave its award in May 1957 which is known as Divatia
Award. The recommendations made by the said Board and the provisions of the
Act were challenged by some establishments including some of the
petitioners herein, under Article 32 of the Constitution, and these
challenges were dealt with in the decision of this Court in Express
Newspaper (Pvt.) Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. : (1961)
ILLJ339SC by a Constitution Bench of five learned Judges. To this decision,
we may have occasion to refer later. Suffice it to say for the present that
certain propositions of law which were laid down by this decision were
followed not only by the later Wage Boards appointed under the Act by all
industrial adjudicators in the country.
After the Divatia Wage Board, three more wage boards were appointed, viz.,
Bhandarkar Wage Board, Snide Wage Board and Palekar Wage Board in 1958,
1963 and 1975-76 respectively. They gave their respective awards in
1959,1967 and 1980. They followed the principles laid down in the aforesaid
decision of this Court, Then came the present Wage Board, viz., Bachawat
Wage Board and its impugned award.
3. Before we discuss the challenges to the impugned award, it will be
necessary to examine the relevant provisions of the Act, the changes
brought about in the Act after the decision in Express Newspaper case
(supra) and the propositions of law laid down in the aforesaid decision.
Section 2(d) defines “newspaper establishment” to mean-
(d) “newspaper establishment” means an establishment under the control of
any person or body of persons, whether incorporated or not, for the
production or publication of one or more newspapers or for conducting any
news agency or syndicate; (and includes newspaper establishments specified
as one establishment under the Schedule).
Explanation – For the purposes of this clause, –
(a) different departments, branches and centers of newspaper establishments
shall be treated as parts thereof;
(b) a printing press shall be deemed to be a newspaper establishment if the
principal business thereof is to print newspaper];
The Schedule referred to above states as follows:
1. For the purposes of Clause (d) of Section 2,
(1) two or more newspaper establishments under common control shall be
deemed to be one newspaper establishment;
(2) two or more newspaper establishments owned by an individual and his or
her spouse shall be deemed to be one newspaper establishment unless it is
shown that such spouse is a sole proprietor or partner or a shareholder of
a corporate body on the basis of his or her own individual funds;
(3) two or more newspaper establishments publishing newspapers bearing the
same or similar title and in the same language in any place in India or
bearing the same or similar title but in different languages in the same
State or Union territory shall be deemed to be one newspaper establishment.
2. For the purposes of paragraph 1(1), two more establishments shall be
deemed to be under common control –
(a)(i) where the newspaper establishments are owned by a common individual
or individuals;
(ii) where the newspaper establishments are owned by firms, if such firms
have a substantial number of common partners;
(iii) where the newspaper establishments are owned by bodies corporate, if
one body corporate is a subsidiary of the other body corporate, or both are
subsidiaries of a common holding company or a substantial number of their
equity shares are owned by the same person or group of persons, whether
incorporated or not;
(iv) where one establishment is owned by a body corporate and the other is
owned by a firm, if a substantial number of partners of the firm together
hold a substantial number of equity shares of the body corporate;
(v) where one is owned by a body corporate and the other is owned by a firm
having bodies corporate as its partners if a substantial number of equity
shares of such bodies corporate are owned, directly or indirectly by the
same person or group of persons, whether incorporated or not, or
(b) where there is functional integrality between concerned newspaper
establishments.
The bracketed addition in Section 2(d) and the Schedule referred to therein
were inserted by the Amending Act 31 of 1989 which came into force
retrospectively on 28th August, 1989. The provisions of Section 2(i) of the
said Amending Act in terms state that the said bracketed portion “shall be
deemed always to have been inserted at the end” of the original Section
2(d) of the Act. Section 8 and Section 13B give power to the Central
Government to fix rates of wages in respect of working journalists and non-
journalist newspaper employees respectively, and to revise from time to
time the rates of wages fixed, at such intervals as it may think fit.
Section 9 and Section 13C lay down the procedure for fixing or revising the
rates of wages in respect of working journalists and non-journalist
newspaper employees respectively, and they state that for the purpose, the
Central Government shall as and when necessary, constitute a Wage Board.
Sub-section (1) of Section 10 read with Section 13D lays down the procedure
which the Wage Board is required to follow while fixing or revising the
rates of wages. The provision says that the Board shall, by notice
published in such manner as it thinks fit, call upon all interested persons
to make such representations as they may think fit as respects the rates of
wages which may be fixed or revised under this Act. Sub-section (2) of
Section 10 states that every such representation shall state the rates of
wages, which in the opinion of the person making the representation, would
be reasonable, having regard to the capacity of the employer to pay the
same or to any other circumstance, whichever may deem relevant to the
person making the representation. Sub-section (3) thereof states that the
Board shall take into account the representations so made and after
examining the materials placed before it, make such recommendations as it
thinks fit to the Central Government for the fixation or revision of rates
of wages and any such recommendation may specify when, prospectively or
retrospectively, it should take effect. Sub-section (4) thereof makes an
important provision. It enjoins upon the Board while making the
recommendations to the Central Government, to have regard to the cost of
living, the prevalent rates of wages for comparable employment, the
circumstances relating to the newspaper industry in different regions of
the country and to any other circumstances which to the Board may seem
relevant. An Explanation was added to the said Sub-section (4) by the same
Amending Act of 1989 which has a bearing on one of the challenges made to
the impugned Award. It states:
Explanation. – For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that
nothing in this Sub-section shall prevent the Board from making
recommendations for fixation or revision of rates of wages on all India
basis.
[Emphasis supplied]
Sub-section (1) of Section 12 gives power to the Central Government to make
an order in terms of the recommendations made by the Board or subject to
such modifications as it thinks fit, being modifications which in the
opinion of the Central Government, do not effect important alterations in
the character of the recommendations. Sub-section (2) thereof gives power
to the Central Government to make such modifications in the
recommendations, not being modifications of the nature referred to in Sub-
section (1), as it thinks fit, after giving to all persons likely to be
affected thereby an opportunity to make representations or to refer the
recommendations or any part thereof to the Board, as it thinks fit. Sub-
section (3) states that every order make by the Central Government together
with the recommendations of the Board shall come into operation on the date
of publication or on such date, whether prospective or retrospective, as
may be specified in the order. Section 13 read with Section 13D states that
on the coming into operation of the order of the Central Government under
Section 12, every working journalist and non-journalist newspaper employee
shall be entitled to be paid by his employer wages at the rate which shall
in no case be less than the rates of wages specified in the order. Section
13A gives power to the Central Government to fix interim rates of wages
after consulting the Wage Board.
4. We may now refer to the propositions of law laid down by this Court in
the decision in Express Newspapers Ltd. case (supra). They are, among
others, as follows –
(1) For the fixation of rates of wages which include within its compass,
the fixation of scales of wages also, the capacity of the industry to pay
is one of the essential circumstances to be taken into consideration except
in cases of bare subsistence or minimum wages where the employer is bound
to pay the same irrespective of such capacity. Under the provisions of the
Act, it is not only open to, but incumbent upon the Wage Board to consider
the capacity of the industry to pay, as an essential circumstance.
(2) The capacity of the industry to pay is to be considered on an industry-
cum-region basis after taking a fair cross section of the industry.
(3) The proper measure of weighing the capacity of the industry to pay
should take into account the elasticity of the demand for the product, the
possibility of tightening up the organisation so that the industry could
pay higher wages without difficulty and the possibility of increase in the
efficiency of the lowest paid workers, resulting in increase in production,
considered in conjunction with the elasticity of the demand for the product
against the ultimate background that the burden of the increased rate
should not be such as to drive the employer out of business.
(4) The provisions of the Act as they stood then were not violative of the
fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution which provided for classification. The classification of the
newspaper establishments on the basis of the gross revenue earned is not
bad.
(5) The grouping of the newspaper establishments into chains or multiple
units is justified having regard to the conditions of the newspaper
industry in the country. There is nothing in the Act which militates
against such grouping. The real difficulty however in the matter of
grouping into chains or multiple units arises in connection with the
capacity of the industry to pay. If a classification on the basis of gross
revenue would be legitimately adopted by the Wage Board, the grouping into
chains or multiple units could also be made. There is nothing in the Act to
prohibit the treating of several newspaper establishments producing or
publishing one or more newspapers, though in different parts of the
country, as one newspaper establishment for the purpose of fixing the rates
of wages. It would not be illegitimate to expect the same standard of
employment and conditions of service in several newspaper establishments
under the control of any person or body of persons whether incorporated or
not. For an employer to think of employing one set of persons on higher
scales of wages and another set of workers on lower scales of wages would
by itself be inequitous, though it would be quite legitimate to expect the
difference in scales having regard to the quality of the work required to
be done, the conditions of labour in different regions of the country, the
standard of living in those regions and other cognate factOrs. All these
conditions would necessarily have to be borne in mind by the Wage Board in
arriving at its decision in regard to the wage structure though the
relative importance to be attached to one set or the other, may vary in
accordance with the conditions in different areas or regions where the
newspaper establishments are located.
(6) If the industry is divided into different classes, it may not be
necessary to consider the capacity of each individual unit to pay. It would
certainly be necessary to consider the capacity of the respective classes
to bear the burden imposed on them. A cross section of these respective
classes may have to be taken for careful examination and all relevant
factors may have to be borne in mind in deciding what burden the class
considered as a whole can bear.
5. It is necessary to note some significant amendments which were made to
the original Act after the aforesaid decision. The first such amendment, as
stated above, was to include within the scope of the Act, the non-
journalists newspaper employees. The second amendment was to the definition
of “newspaper establishment” in Section 2(d) and as pointed out earlier, it
was the addition of the bracketed portion in the said definition and the
Schedule. With this amendment, different departments, branches and centers
of a newspaper establishment were treated as a part of the same
establishment and even a printing press, whose principal business was to
print newspaper, was also deemed to be a newspaper establishment. As per
the Schedule introduced, (i) two or more newspaper establishments under
common control were deemed to be one newspaper establishment; (ii) two or
more newspaper establishments publishing newspapers bearing the same or
similar title and in the same language in any place in India or bearing the
same or similar title, but in different languages in the same State or
Union Territory, were also deemed to be one newspaper establishment; and
(iii) two or more establishments owned by an individual and his or her
spouse were also deemed to be one newspaper establishment, unless it was
shown that such spouse was the sole proprietor or partner or a shareholder
in a corporate body on the basis of his or her own individual funds. The
third amendment was an addition of Explanation to Section 10(4) [(former
Section 9(1)], enabling the Board to make recommendations for fixation or
revision of rates of wages on all India basis. It has to be noted that this
amendment was made after the publication of the award impugned in the
present case.
6. The main contention of the petitioners in the present cases/petitions is
that this Court in Express Newspaper case (supra) has accepted the
contention that in the absence of the requirement of looking into the
capacity of industry on an industry-region basis, the entire Act would be
violative of Constitution. Hence the Court had in that case read into the
provisions of Section 10(4) [the then Section 9(1)] the requirement of
looking into the capacity of the industry to pay on an industry-cum-region
basis. The necessity to read the said requirement into Section 10(4) has
not been changed by the amendments to Sections 2(d) and 10(4). If it is
held that the amendment to Section 2(d) would permit an all India fixation
of wages, taking into consideration the gross revenue of the company or
other independent companies which are sought to be clubbed, the provisions
of Section 2(d), as amended, would be violative of the petitioners’ right
under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution inasmuch as such
fixing up of wages would bring about the situation as it prevailed under
the first Wage Board resulting in ignoring the economic viability of the
weaker units of the company rendering it impossible to run the said units.
It would also make it impossible for the companies to start new newspapers
since they would not be viable and would not be in a position to complete
with other publications in the same locality. The grouping of the
newspapers into chain or multiple units did not imply that the weaker units
in those groups must be treated on par with the stronger units. Any such
principle of fixation of wages without taking into consideration the burden
that would be imposed upon weaker unit of a particular newspaper
establishment would be erroneous. Hence it is contended that the amendment
to Section 2(d) would be subject to the provisions of Section 10(4) as it
stood and as it stands today. Section 2(d) is only a definition clause and
the provisions of Section 10(4) are mandatory. Hence, harmonious
construction of the provisions of Section 2(d) and Section 10(4) is
necessary. Construed thus, it would enable the Wage Board to fix the wages
on all India basis taking into consideration the industry as a whole and at
the same time, the capacity of individual unit. That would enable the Wage
Board to classify the individual unit first into its proper class and then
upgrade it reasonably if it belongs to a multiple or chain group. In this
connection, it is pointed out that all the Wage Boards in the past except
the Palekar Wage Board which dealt with the question on a different
footing, fixed wages on the above basis. The said Wage Boards thus
implemented the aforesaid decision of this Court.
It is further pointed out that the present Wage Board itself has recognised
this principle and while classifying the newspaper establishments in para
11 of Section II of Part I of Chapter IX of the Report on the basis of the
gross revenue into 10 classes, it has made an exception in paragraph 6(2)
of the said Section in case of newspaper establishments falling in classes
VI to IX by directing that they will not be stepped up by more than two
classes as a whole in clubbing of gross revenue as is directed in Sub-para
(1) of the said para 6. However, the Board has given no reason why
similarly for the establishments falling in classes IA to V, the same
consideration should not be shown. On the other hand, the Board without
giving any reasons, has chosen to treat every unit of the newspaper
establishment falling in the latter classes, viz., classes IA to V as being
of the same class to which the establishment itself belongs on the basis of
its gross revenue. This has manifastly resulted in the weaker units of the
newspaper establishments belonging to the said classes being ranked with
the highest in the same class, thus, crippling the weaker units with the
heavy unbearable financial burden and forcing them to close. Such
classification directly offends the petitioners’ rights under Articles
19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Among the other infirmities which are pointed out in the impugned award,
the first is that while classifying the establishments, the benefit of
paragraph 12 of Section II of Part I of Chapter IX is not given to them by
ascertaining whether their advertisement revenue is less or more than 45
per cent of its gross revenue. If this was done and where it was found that
it was less than 45 per cent of the gross revenue, the concerned
establishments would have been placed in the class next below that in which
they are classified on the basis of their gross revenue. Secondly, the
award while calculating the financial capacity, has made no provision even
for a reasonable depreciation and to that extent the estimates of the
capacity of the establishments to pay are seriously flawed. Thirdly, the
award has not considered the burden of retrospective effect it has given to
its recommendations from 1.1.1988. The burden on the establishments from
1.1.1988 to 31.12.1989 is enormous and the Board was duty-bound to
calculate the said burden to find out whether the establishments were
capable of bearing the same. Lastly, the award has also not taken into
consideration the costs of news- print which had in the meanwhile gone up
by about 76.6 per cent.
We find much substance in the contention – that the Board has arbitrarily
clubbed together the different units of the same establishment and
classified all of them with the highest of the class to which its top-most
unit belongs so far as classes IA to V are concerned and has not followed
in respect of those classes, its own guideline given in the said paragraph
6(2) in respect of the establishments which belong to classes VI to IX. The
Wage Board in paragraph 11 of Section II of Part I of Chapter IX of its
Report has classified the different newspaper establishments on the basis
of their gross revenue as follows:
Class Gross Revenue IA Rs. 100 crores and above I Rs. 50 crores and above
but less than Rs. 100 crores II Rs. 20 crores and above but less than Rs.
50 crores III Rs. 10 crores and above but less than Rs. 20 crores IV Rs. 5
crores and above but less than Rs. 10 crores V Rs. 2 crores and above but
less than Rs. 5 crores VI Rs. 1 crores and above but less than Rs. 2 crores
VII Rs. 50 lakhs and above but less than Rs. 1 crore VIII Rs. 25 lakhs and
above but less than Rs. 50 lakhs IX Less than Rs. 25 lakhs
In Annexure V of the Report, the Board has catalogued the effect of
clubbing the different units of the same establishment at different places
on the basis of average gross revenue for the past 3 years. The Annexure
itself depicts the inequitable results of the grouping. We may as an
illustration refer to the effect of clubbing of the units of some of the
petitioner-establishments which are mentioned there. Taking the case of
Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd., it has its units at Bombay, Delhi, Ahmedabad,
Calcutta, Patna, Jaipur, Pune, Madras and also printing presses at Madras,
Patna, Jaipur and Lucknow and its total gross revenue is Rs. 10,238.72
crores. Its Bombay, Delhi and Ahmedabad units have been classified as IA,
although their gross revenue is less Rs. 100 crores, 50 crores and 5 crores
respectively and they would properly fall according to the guidelines of
the Board in classes I, II and V respectively. Similarly, the units of the
company at Calcutta, Patna, Bangalore and Jaipur are classified in
categories IV, V, V and V respectively, although on the basis of their
gross revenue they would fall in the categories of VI, VII, VII and IX
respectively, Coming now to the second establishment, viz., Express
Newspapers, they have their two units at Bombay, one at Madurai and another
at Hyderabad. The gross revenue of all the units was Rs. 7,918.18 crores.
They are all consigned to class I, although their main unit at Bombay and
their unit at Madurai belong to class II and their subsidiary unit at
Bombay and their unit at Hyderabad belong to class IV and V respectively.
It is not necessary to multiply these instances. According to us, in view
of the definition of “newspaper establishment” in Section 2(d) and the
Explanation to Section 10(4) of the Act and also in view of the fifth and
sixth propositions of law laid down by this Court in Express Newspaper case
(supra) as extracted above, the units of an establishment which has
branches all over India, can be clubbed together for the purpose of
fixation of wages on all India basis. Since all the units of an
establishment are not expected to fare similarly, uniform pay-scales for
the employees in all the units can be prescribed taking into consideration
the financial capacity of the establishment as a whole. The instances
pointed out above are the result of the clubbing of the different units of
the same establishment.
However, there is much force in the contention of the petitioners that the
principle of fixation of the wages on all India basis has not been applied
by the Board with uniform yardstick as is evident from paragraph 6(2) of
Section II of Part I of Chapter IX of the Report. Whereas the units of the
newspaper establishments falling in any of the classes VI to IX, as
detailed above, on the basis of their own gross revenue are, for the
fixation of wages not to be stepped up by more than two classes, the units
of the newspaper establishments falling in classes IA to V are all to be
classified as belonging to the class to which the said establishment
belongs on the basis of the gross revenue of all the said units. The result
of this discrimination is that for the purposes of fixing the wage-scales,
the units of the newspaper establishments belonging to classes VI to IX
would not be considered as belonging to the said classes but to the classes
which are only two grades above the class to which the said units on the
basis of their own revenue properly belong. On the other hand, the units of
the establishments belonging to classes IA to V would all be considered as
belonging to the class to which the establishment itself belongs. The Board
has not given any reason as to why while applying the principle of uniform
wage-scales to all units of an establishment on all India basis, it has
made the discrimination in question between the newspaper establishments
belonging to classes IA to V and those belonging to classes VI to, IX. The
respondents also could not offer any satisfactory explanation or advance a
plausible contention to defend the said discrimination. We are, therefore,
of the view that the impugned award to be made legally enforceable will
have to be modified by extending the limitation of up gradation upto the
maximum of two classes laid down in the said para 6(2) also to the
newspaper establishments falling in classes IA to V.
7. As regards the other grounds of attack, we are afraid we see no reason
to interfere with the award on the said grounds. In view of the amended
definition of the “newspaper establishment” under Section 2(d) which came
into operation retrospectively from the inception of the Act and the
Explanation added to Section 10(4), and in view further of the fact that in
clubbing the units of the establishment together, the Board cannot be said
to have acted contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Express
Newspaper case (supra), the classification of the newspaper establishments
on all India basis for the purpose of fixation of wages is not bad in law.
Hence it is not violative of the petitioners’ rights under Articles 19(1)
(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Financial capacity of an all India
newspaper establishment has to be considered on the basis of the gross
revenue and the financial capacity of all the units taken together. Hence,
it cannot be said that the petitioner-companies as all India newspaper
establishments are not viable whatever the financial incapacity of their
individual units. After amendment of Section 2(d) retrospectively read with
the addition of the Explanation to Section 10(4), the old provisions can no
longer be pressed into service to contend against the grouping of the units
of the all India establishments, into one class.
8. The other contentions advanced on behalf of the Indian Express
Newspapers (P) Ltd. are as follows. Firstly, it is contended that the
benefit of the provisions of paragraph 12 of Section II of Part I of
Chapter IX is not given to the petitioner-establishment while classifying
it. Secondly, while calculating the financial capacity, the award has made
no provision even for a reasonable depreciation and to that extent the
estimates of the capacity of the establishment to pay the revised wages are
seriously flawed. The third contention is that the Board has not considered
the burden of retrospective effect it has given to its recommendations from
1.1.1988. Lastly, it is contended that the award has not taken into
consideration the cost of newsprint which had in the meanwhile gone up by
about 76.6 per cent.
9. More or less similar contentions were raised on behalf of other
petitioner-establishments. We have made clear at the very outset that some
of these contentions raised disputed questions of facts and Ors. mixed
questions of facts and law and hence we will not entertain them. In
addition, as far as Indian Express Newspapers (Pvt.) Ltd. is concerned the
record shows that the said petitioners had not produced any material before
the Board in support of its aforesaid contentions which are for the first
time advanced before this Court. In fact, the company had virtually
boycotted the proceedings of the Board.
10. In view of what we have held above, we allow all the Writ Petitions and
Transfer Cases except T.C.N. 6 of 1990, only to the extent indicated below.
The benefit given in paragraph 6(2) of Section II of Part I of Chapter IX
will extend to all classes of the newspaper establishments as categorised
in paragraph 11 of the said Report and the units of the newspaper
establishments in all the said classes shall not be stepped up by more than
two classes over and above the classes to which they belong according to
their own gross revenue.
In view of our above conclusion, the award as modified, should be
implemented by all the establishments w.e.f. 1.1.1988 and the respondent-
employees should be paid wages w.e.f. the said date i.e., 1.1.1988. Where,
however, there have been settlements between the management and the
employees the payment of wages and of arrears of wages will be governed by
the terms of those settlements.
There will be no order as to costs.
In views of the above order by which T.C. No. 5 of 1990 is allowed as
above, SLP (C) NO. 16356 of 1990 filed by the same petitioners in this
Court, does not survive.
In view of the order passed above in main matters, T.C. No. 6 of 1990
stands disposed of, as above.
In view of our order in the main matters, as above, none of the
Interlocutory Applications survives,
