{"id":141699,"date":"1994-09-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1994-09-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-express-newspapers-p-vs-union-of-india-and-others-etc-etc-on-23-september-1994"},"modified":"2015-09-10T11:19:07","modified_gmt":"2015-09-10T05:49:07","slug":"indian-express-newspapers-p-vs-union-of-india-and-others-etc-etc-on-23-september-1994","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-express-newspapers-p-vs-union-of-india-and-others-etc-etc-on-23-september-1994","title":{"rendered":"Indian Express Newspapers (P) … vs Union Of India And Others Etc. Etc on 23 September, 1994"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Indian Express Newspapers (P) … vs Union Of India And Others Etc. Etc on 23 September, 1994<\/div>\n
Author: P Sawant<\/div>\n
Bench: Kuldip Singh, P.B. Sawant, N.P. Singh<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nTransfer Case (civil)  10 of 1990\n\nPETITIONER:\nIndian Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. etc. etc.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUnion of India and others etc. etc.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/09\/1994\n\nBENCH:\nKuldip Singh & P.B. Sawant & N.P. Singh\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
P.B. Sawant, J.\n<\/p>\n
1. In all these matters, the petitioner-establishments have challenged two
\norders viz., Nos. 683(E) and 684(E), both dated 31.8.1989, (hereinafter
\nreferred to as ‘Orders’) issued by the Central Government under Section 11
\nof the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of
\nService) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as
\nthe ‘Act’) accepting and giving effect to the recommendations of the Wage
\nBoard Report dated 26.5.1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Report’) on
\nvarious grounds. Order No. 683(E) deals with wage-scales and grades, and
\nOrder No. 684(E) deals with House Rent Allowance and City Compensatory
\nAllowance. The Wage Board was constituted by the respondent 1-Union
\nGovernment in 1985 under the chairmanship of Shri Bachawat and hence the
\nReport given by it is known as Bachawat Award. Both the orders are
\nchallenged on the ground of violation of the fundamental rights under
\nArticles 14, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
The petitioners also challenge the amendment of Sections 2(d) and 10(4) of
\nthe Act brought about by Sections 2(i) and 3 of the Working Journalists and
\nother Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous
\nProvisions (Amendment) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “Amending
\nAct”) by adding an Explanation at the end of Section 10(4) and a Schedule
\nat the end of the Act as being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)\n<\/p>\n
(g) of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
2. In order to appreciate the challenges, it is necessary to state a few
\nbackground facts.\n<\/p>\n
The Act as it was initially enacted was titled the Working Journalists
\n(Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (the
\n‘original Act’) since it was confined to the service conditions of the
\nworking journalists only. By an amendment brought into force on 21.12.1974,
\nby the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of
\nService) and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 1974, the scope of
\nthe original Act was expanded to include the other newspaper employees.
\nUnder the original Act, which was confined to the working journalists only,
\na Board headed by Shri Divatia was appointed under Section 9 of the Act,
\nand the said Board gave its award in May 1957 which is known as Divatia
\nAward. The recommendations made by the said Board and the provisions of the
\nAct were challenged by some establishments including some of the
\npetitioners herein, under Article 32 of the Constitution, and these
\nchallenges were dealt with in the decision of this Court in Express
\nNewspaper (Pvt.) Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.<\/a>  : (1961)
\nILLJ339SC by a Constitution Bench of five learned Judges. To this decision,
\nwe may have occasion to refer later. Suffice it to say for the present that
\ncertain propositions of law which were laid down by this decision were
\nfollowed not only by the later Wage Boards appointed under the Act by all
\nindustrial adjudicators in the country.\n<\/p>\n
After the Divatia Wage Board, three more wage boards were appointed, viz.,
\nBhandarkar Wage Board, Snide Wage Board and Palekar Wage Board in 1958,
\n1963 and 1975-76 respectively. They gave their respective awards in
\n1959,1967 and 1980. They followed the principles laid down in the aforesaid
\ndecision of this Court, Then came the present Wage Board, viz., Bachawat
\nWage Board and its impugned award.\n<\/p>\n
3. Before we discuss the challenges to the impugned award, it will be
\nnecessary to examine the relevant provisions of the Act, the changes
\nbrought about in the Act after the decision in Express Newspaper case
\n(supra) and the propositions of law laid down in the aforesaid decision.\n<\/p>\n
Section 2(d) defines “newspaper establishment” to mean-\n<\/p>\n
(d) “newspaper establishment” means an establishment under the control of
\nany person or body of persons, whether incorporated or not, for the
\nproduction or publication of one or more newspapers or for conducting any
\nnews agency or syndicate; (and includes newspaper establishments specified
\nas one establishment under the Schedule).\n<\/p>\n
Explanation – For the purposes of this clause, –\n<\/p>\n
(a) different departments, branches and centers of newspaper establishments
\nshall be treated as parts thereof;\n<\/p>\n
(b) a printing press shall be deemed to be a newspaper establishment if the
\nprincipal business thereof is to print newspaper];\n<\/p>\n
The Schedule referred to above states as follows:\n<\/p>\n
1. For the purposes of Clause (d) of Section 2,<\/p>\n
(1) two or more newspaper establishments under common control shall be
\ndeemed to be one newspaper establishment;\n<\/p>\n
(2) two or more newspaper establishments owned by an individual and his or
\nher spouse shall be deemed to be one newspaper establishment unless it is
\nshown that such spouse is a sole proprietor or partner or a shareholder of
\na corporate body on the basis of his or her own individual funds;\n<\/p>\n
(3) two or more newspaper establishments publishing newspapers bearing the
\nsame or similar title and in the same language in any place in India or
\nbearing the same or similar title but in different languages in the same
\nState or Union territory shall be deemed to be one newspaper establishment.\n<\/p>\n
2. For the purposes of paragraph 1(1), two more establishments shall be
\ndeemed to be under common control –\n<\/p>\n
(a)(i) where the newspaper establishments are owned by a common individual
\nor individuals;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) where the newspaper establishments are owned by firms, if such firms
\nhave a substantial number of common partners;\n<\/p>\n
(iii) where the newspaper establishments are owned by bodies corporate, if
\none body corporate is a subsidiary of the other body corporate, or both are
\nsubsidiaries of a common holding company or a substantial number of their
\nequity shares are owned by the same person or group of persons, whether
\nincorporated or not;\n<\/p>\n
(iv) where one establishment is owned by a body corporate and the other is
\nowned by a firm, if a substantial number of partners of the firm together
\nhold a substantial number of equity shares of the body corporate;\n<\/p>\n
(v) where one is owned by a body corporate and the other is owned by a firm
\nhaving bodies corporate as its partners if a substantial number of equity
\nshares of such bodies corporate are owned, directly or indirectly by the
\nsame person or group of persons, whether incorporated or not, or<\/p>\n
(b) where there is functional integrality between concerned newspaper
\nestablishments.\n<\/p>\n
The bracketed addition in Section 2(d) and the Schedule referred to therein
\nwere inserted by the Amending Act 31 of 1989 which came into force
\nretrospectively on 28th August, 1989. The provisions of Section 2(i) of the
\nsaid Amending Act in terms state that the said bracketed portion “shall be
\ndeemed always to have been inserted at the end” of the original Section
\n2(d) of the Act. Section 8 and Section 13B give power to the Central
\nGovernment to fix rates of wages in respect of working journalists and non-
\njournalist newspaper employees respectively, and to revise from time to
\ntime the rates of wages fixed, at such intervals as it may think fit.
\nSection 9 and Section 13C lay down the procedure for fixing or revising the
\nrates of wages in respect of working journalists and non-journalist
\nnewspaper employees respectively, and they state that for the purpose, the
\nCentral Government shall as and when necessary, constitute a Wage Board.
\nSub-section (1) of Section 10 read with Section 13D lays down the procedure
\nwhich the Wage Board is required to follow while fixing or revising the
\nrates of wages. The provision says that the Board shall, by notice
\npublished in such manner as it thinks fit, call upon all interested persons
\nto make such representations as they may think fit as respects the rates of
\nwages which may be fixed or revised under this Act. Sub-section (2) of
\nSection 10 states that every such representation shall state the rates of
\nwages, which in the opinion of the person making the representation, would
\nbe reasonable, having regard to the capacity of the employer to pay the
\nsame or to any other circumstance, whichever may deem relevant to the
\nperson making the representation. Sub-section (3) thereof states that the
\nBoard shall take into account the representations so made and after
\nexamining the materials placed before it, make such recommendations as it
\nthinks fit to the Central Government for the fixation or revision of rates
\nof wages and any such recommendation may specify when, prospectively or
\nretrospectively, it should take effect. Sub-section (4) thereof makes an
\nimportant provision. It enjoins upon the Board while making the
\nrecommendations to the Central Government, to have regard to the cost of
\nliving, the prevalent rates of wages for comparable employment, the
\ncircumstances relating to the newspaper industry in different regions of
\nthe country and to any other circumstances which to the Board may seem
\nrelevant. An Explanation was added to the said Sub-section (4) by the same
\nAmending Act of 1989 which has a bearing on one of the challenges made to
\nthe impugned Award. It states:\n<\/p>\n
Explanation. – For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that
\nnothing in this Sub-section shall prevent the Board from making
\nrecommendations for fixation or revision of rates of wages on all India
\nbasis.\n<\/p>\n
[Emphasis supplied]<\/p>\n
Sub-section (1) of Section 12 gives power to the Central Government to make
\nan order in terms of the recommendations made by the Board or subject to
\nsuch modifications as it thinks fit, being modifications which in the
\nopinion of the Central Government, do not effect important alterations in
\nthe character of the recommendations. Sub-section (2) thereof gives power
\nto the Central Government to make such modifications in the
\nrecommendations, not being modifications of the nature referred to in Sub-
\nsection (1), as it thinks fit, after giving to all persons likely to be
\naffected thereby an opportunity to make representations or to refer the
\nrecommendations or any part thereof to the Board, as it thinks fit. Sub-
\nsection (3) states that every order make by the Central Government together
\nwith the recommendations of the Board shall come into operation on the date
\nof publication or on such date, whether prospective or retrospective, as
\nmay be specified in the order. Section 13 read with Section 13D states that
\non the coming into operation of the order of the Central Government under
\nSection 12, every working journalist and non-journalist newspaper employee
\nshall be entitled to be paid by his employer wages at the rate which shall
\nin no case be less than the rates of wages specified in the order. Section
\n13A gives power to the Central Government to fix interim rates of wages
\nafter consulting the Wage Board.\n<\/p>\n
4. We may now refer to the propositions of law laid down by this Court in
\nthe decision in Express Newspapers Ltd. case (supra). They are, among
\nothers, as follows –\n<\/p>\n
(1) For the fixation of rates of wages which include within its compass,
\nthe fixation of scales of wages also, the capacity of the industry to pay
\nis one of the essential circumstances to be taken into consideration except
\nin cases of bare subsistence or minimum wages where the employer is bound
\nto pay the same irrespective of such capacity. Under the provisions of the
\nAct, it is not only open to, but incumbent upon the Wage Board to consider
\nthe capacity of the industry to pay, as an essential circumstance.\n<\/p>\n
(2) The capacity of the industry to pay is to be considered on an industry-
\ncum-region basis after taking a fair cross section of the industry.\n<\/p>\n
(3) The proper measure of weighing the capacity of the industry to pay
\nshould take into account the elasticity of the demand for the product, the
\npossibility of tightening up the organisation so that the industry could
\npay higher wages without difficulty and the possibility of increase in the
\nefficiency of the lowest paid workers, resulting in increase in production,
\nconsidered in conjunction with the elasticity of the demand for the product
\nagainst the ultimate background that the burden of the increased rate
\nshould not be such as to drive the employer out of business.\n<\/p>\n
(4) The provisions of the Act as they stood then were not violative of the
\nfundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the
\nConstitution which provided for classification. The classification of the
\nnewspaper establishments on the basis of the gross revenue earned is not
\nbad.\n<\/p>\n
(5) The grouping of the newspaper establishments into chains or multiple
\nunits is justified having regard to the conditions of the newspaper
\nindustry in the country. There is nothing in the Act which militates
\nagainst such grouping. The real difficulty however in the matter of
\ngrouping into chains or multiple units arises in connection with the
\ncapacity of the industry to pay. If a classification on the basis of gross
\nrevenue would be legitimately adopted by the Wage Board, the grouping into
\nchains or multiple units could also be made. There is nothing in the Act to
\nprohibit the treating of several newspaper establishments producing or
\npublishing one or more newspapers, though in different parts of the
\ncountry, as one newspaper establishment for the purpose of fixing the rates
\nof wages. It would not be illegitimate to expect the same standard of
\nemployment and conditions of service in several newspaper establishments
\nunder the control of any person or body of persons whether incorporated or
\nnot. For an employer to think of employing one set of persons on higher
\nscales of wages and another set of workers on lower scales of wages would
\nby itself be inequitous, though it would be quite legitimate to expect the
\ndifference in scales having regard to the quality of the work required to
\nbe done, the conditions of labour in different regions of the country, the
\nstandard of living in those regions and other cognate factOrs. All these
\nconditions would necessarily have to be borne in mind by the Wage Board in
\narriving at its decision in regard to the wage structure though the
\nrelative importance to be attached to one set or the other, may vary in
\naccordance with the conditions in different areas or regions where the
\nnewspaper establishments are located.\n<\/p>\n
(6) If the industry is divided into different classes, it may not be
\nnecessary to consider the capacity of each individual unit to pay. It would
\ncertainly be necessary to consider the capacity of the respective classes
\nto bear the burden imposed on them. A cross section of these respective
\nclasses may have to be taken for careful examination and all relevant
\nfactors may have to be borne in mind in deciding what burden the class
\nconsidered as a whole can bear.\n<\/p>\n
5. It is necessary to note some significant amendments which were made to
\nthe original Act after the aforesaid decision. The first such amendment, as
\nstated above, was to include within the scope of the Act, the non-
\njournalists newspaper employees. The second amendment was to the definition
\nof “newspaper establishment” in Section 2(d) and as pointed out earlier, it
\nwas the addition of the bracketed portion in the said definition and the
\nSchedule. With this amendment, different departments, branches and centers
\nof a newspaper establishment were treated as a part of the same
\nestablishment and even a printing press, whose principal business was to
\nprint newspaper, was also deemed to be a newspaper establishment. As per
\nthe Schedule introduced, (i) two or more newspaper establishments under
\ncommon control were deemed to be one newspaper establishment; (ii) two or
\nmore newspaper establishments publishing newspapers bearing the same or
\nsimilar title and in the same language in any place in India or bearing the
\nsame or similar title, but in different languages in the same State or
\nUnion Territory, were also deemed to be one newspaper establishment; and\n<\/p>\n
(iii) two or more establishments owned by an individual and his or her
\nspouse were also deemed to be one newspaper establishment, unless it was
\nshown that such spouse was the sole proprietor or partner or a shareholder
\nin a corporate body on the basis of his or her own individual funds. The
\nthird amendment was an addition of Explanation to Section 10(4) [(former
\nSection 9(1)], enabling the Board to make recommendations for fixation or
\nrevision of rates of wages on all India basis. It has to be noted that this
\namendment was made after the publication of the award impugned in the
\npresent case.\n<\/p>\n
6. The main contention of the petitioners in the present cases\/petitions is
\nthat this Court in Express Newspaper case (supra) has accepted the
\ncontention that in the absence of the requirement of looking into the
\ncapacity of industry on an industry-region basis, the entire Act would be
\nviolative of Constitution. Hence the Court had in that case read into the
\nprovisions of Section 10(4) [the then Section 9(1)] the requirement of
\nlooking into the capacity of the industry to pay on an industry-cum-region
\nbasis. The necessity to read the said requirement into Section 10(4) has
\nnot been changed by the amendments to Sections 2(d) and 10(4). If it is
\nheld that the amendment to Section 2(d) would permit an all India fixation
\nof wages, taking into consideration the gross revenue of the company or
\nother independent companies which are sought to be clubbed, the provisions
\nof Section 2(d), as amended, would be violative of the petitioners’ right
\nunder Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution inasmuch as such
\nfixing up of wages would bring about the situation as it prevailed under
\nthe first Wage Board resulting in ignoring the economic viability of the
\nweaker units of the company rendering it impossible to run the said units.
\nIt would also make it impossible for the companies to start new newspapers
\nsince they would not be viable and would not be in a position to complete
\nwith other publications in the same locality. The grouping of the
\nnewspapers into chain or multiple units did not imply that the weaker units
\nin those groups must be treated on par with the stronger units. Any such
\nprinciple of fixation of wages without taking into consideration the burden
\nthat would be imposed upon weaker unit of a particular newspaper
\nestablishment would be erroneous. Hence it is contended that the amendment
\nto Section 2(d) would be subject to the provisions of Section 10(4) as it
\nstood and as it stands today. Section 2(d) is only a definition clause and
\nthe provisions of Section 10(4) are mandatory. Hence, harmonious
\nconstruction of the provisions of Section 2(d) and Section 10(4) is
\nnecessary. Construed thus, it would enable the Wage Board to fix the wages
\non all India basis taking into consideration the industry as a whole and at
\nthe same time, the capacity of individual unit. That would enable the Wage
\nBoard to classify the individual unit first into its proper class and then
\nupgrade it reasonably if it belongs to a multiple or chain group. In this
\nconnection, it is pointed out that all the Wage Boards in the past except
\nthe Palekar Wage Board which dealt with the question on a different
\nfooting, fixed wages on the above basis. The said Wage Boards thus
\nimplemented the aforesaid decision of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
It is further pointed out that the present Wage Board itself has recognised
\nthis principle and while classifying the newspaper establishments in para
\n11 of Section II of Part I of Chapter IX of the Report on the basis of the
\ngross revenue into 10 classes, it has made an exception in paragraph 6(2)
\nof the said Section in case of newspaper establishments falling in classes
\nVI to IX by directing that they will not be stepped up by more than two
\nclasses as a whole in clubbing of gross revenue as is directed in Sub-para
\n(1) of the said para 6. However, the Board has given no reason why
\nsimilarly for the establishments falling in classes IA to V, the same
\nconsideration should not be shown. On the other hand, the Board without
\ngiving any reasons, has chosen to treat every unit of the newspaper
\nestablishment falling in the latter classes, viz., classes IA to V as being
\nof the same class to which the establishment itself belongs on the basis of
\nits gross revenue. This has manifastly resulted in the weaker units of the
\nnewspaper establishments belonging to the said classes being ranked with
\nthe highest in the same class, thus, crippling the weaker units with the
\nheavy unbearable financial burden and forcing them to close. Such
\nclassification directly offends the petitioners’ rights under Articles
\n19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
Among the other infirmities which are pointed out in the impugned award,
\nthe first is that while classifying the establishments, the benefit of
\nparagraph 12 of Section II of Part I of Chapter IX is not given to them by
\nascertaining whether their advertisement revenue is less or more than 45
\nper cent of its gross revenue. If this was done and where it was found that
\nit was less than 45 per cent of the gross revenue, the concerned
\nestablishments would have been placed in the class next below that in which
\nthey are classified on the basis of their gross revenue. Secondly, the
\naward while calculating the financial capacity, has made no provision even
\nfor a reasonable depreciation and to that extent the estimates of the
\ncapacity of the establishments to pay are seriously flawed. Thirdly, the
\naward has not considered the burden of retrospective effect it has given to
\nits recommendations from 1.1.1988. The burden on the establishments from
\n1.1.1988 to 31.12.1989 is enormous and the Board was duty-bound to
\ncalculate the said burden to find out whether the establishments were
\ncapable of bearing the same. Lastly, the award has also not taken into
\nconsideration the costs of news- print which had in the meanwhile gone up
\nby about 76.6 per cent.\n<\/p>\n
We find much substance in the contention – that the Board has arbitrarily
\nclubbed together the different units of the same establishment and
\nclassified all of them with the highest of the class to which its top-most
\nunit belongs so far as classes IA to V are concerned and has not followed
\nin respect of those classes, its own guideline given in the said paragraph
\n6(2) in respect of the establishments which belong to classes VI to IX. The
\nWage Board in paragraph 11 of Section II of Part I of Chapter IX of its
\nReport has classified the different newspaper establishments on the basis
\nof their gross revenue as follows:\n<\/p>\n
Class Gross Revenue IA Rs. 100 crores and above I Rs. 50 crores and above
\nbut less than Rs. 100 crores II Rs. 20 crores and above but less than Rs.
\n50 crores III Rs. 10 crores and above but less than Rs. 20 crores IV Rs. 5
\ncrores and above but less than Rs. 10 crores V Rs. 2 crores and above but
\nless than Rs. 5 crores VI Rs. 1 crores and above but less than Rs. 2 crores
\nVII Rs. 50 lakhs and above but less than Rs. 1 crore VIII Rs. 25 lakhs and
\nabove but less than Rs. 50 lakhs IX Less than Rs. 25 lakhs<\/p>\n
In Annexure V of the Report, the Board has catalogued the effect of
\nclubbing the different units of the same establishment at different places
\non the basis of average gross revenue for the past 3 years. The Annexure
\nitself depicts the inequitable results of the grouping. We may as an
\nillustration refer to the effect of clubbing of the units of some of the
\npetitioner-establishments which are mentioned there. Taking the case of
\nBennett Coleman & Co. Ltd., it has its units at Bombay, Delhi, Ahmedabad,
\nCalcutta, Patna, Jaipur, Pune, Madras and also printing presses at Madras,
\nPatna, Jaipur and Lucknow and its total gross revenue is Rs. 10,238.72
\ncrores. Its Bombay, Delhi and Ahmedabad units have been classified as IA,
\nalthough their gross revenue is less Rs. 100 crores, 50 crores and 5 crores
\nrespectively and they would properly fall according to the guidelines of
\nthe Board in classes I, II and V respectively. Similarly, the units of the
\ncompany at Calcutta, Patna, Bangalore and Jaipur are classified in
\ncategories IV, V, V and V respectively, although on the basis of their
\ngross revenue they would fall in the categories of VI, VII, VII and IX
\nrespectively, Coming now to the second establishment, viz., Express
\nNewspapers, they have their two units at Bombay, one at Madurai and another
\nat Hyderabad. The gross revenue of all the units was Rs. 7,918.18 crores.
\nThey are all consigned to class I, although their main unit at Bombay and
\ntheir unit at Madurai belong to class II and their subsidiary unit at
\nBombay and their unit at Hyderabad belong to class IV and V respectively.
\nIt is not necessary to multiply these instances. According to us, in view
\nof the definition of “newspaper establishment” in Section 2(d) and the
\nExplanation to Section 10(4) of the Act and also in view of the fifth and
\nsixth propositions of law laid down by this Court in Express Newspaper case
\n(supra) as extracted above, the units of an establishment which has
\nbranches all over India, can be clubbed together for the purpose of
\nfixation of wages on all India basis. Since all the units of an
\nestablishment are not expected to fare similarly, uniform pay-scales for
\nthe employees in all the units can be prescribed taking into consideration
\nthe financial capacity of the establishment as a whole. The instances
\npointed out above are the result of the clubbing of the different units of
\nthe same establishment.\n<\/p>\n
However, there is much force in the contention of the petitioners that the
\nprinciple of fixation of the wages on all India basis has not been applied
\nby the Board with uniform yardstick as is evident from paragraph 6(2) of
\nSection II of Part I of Chapter IX of the Report. Whereas the units of the
\nnewspaper establishments falling in any of the classes VI to IX, as
\ndetailed above, on the basis of their own gross revenue are, for the
\nfixation of wages not to be stepped up by more than two classes, the units
\nof the newspaper establishments falling in classes IA to V are all to be
\nclassified as belonging to the class to which the said establishment
\nbelongs on the basis of the gross revenue of all the said units. The result
\nof this discrimination is that for the purposes of fixing the wage-scales,
\nthe units of the newspaper establishments belonging to classes VI to IX
\nwould not be considered as belonging to the said classes but to the classes
\nwhich are only two grades above the class to which the said units on the
\nbasis of their own revenue properly belong. On the other hand, the units of
\nthe establishments belonging to classes IA to V would all be considered as
\nbelonging to the class to which the establishment itself belongs. The Board
\nhas not given any reason as to why while applying the principle of uniform
\nwage-scales to all units of an establishment on all India basis, it has
\nmade the discrimination in question between the newspaper establishments
\nbelonging to classes IA to V and those belonging to classes VI to, IX. The
\nrespondents also could not offer any satisfactory explanation or advance a
\nplausible contention to defend the said discrimination. We are, therefore,
\nof the view that the impugned award to be made legally enforceable will
\nhave to be modified by extending the limitation of up gradation upto the
\nmaximum of two classes laid down in the said para 6(2) also to the
\nnewspaper establishments falling in classes IA to V.\n<\/p>\n
7. As regards the other grounds of attack, we are afraid we see no reason
\nto interfere with the award on the said grounds. In view of the amended
\ndefinition of the “newspaper establishment” under Section 2(d) which came
\ninto operation retrospectively from the inception of the Act and the
\nExplanation added to Section 10(4), and in view further of the fact that in
\nclubbing the units of the establishment together, the Board cannot be said
\nto have acted contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Express
\nNewspaper case (supra), the classification of the newspaper establishments
\non all India basis for the purpose of fixation of wages is not bad in law.
\nHence it is not violative of the petitioners’ rights under Articles 19(1)\n<\/p>\n
(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Financial capacity of an all India
\nnewspaper establishment has to be considered on the basis of the gross
\nrevenue and the financial capacity of all the units taken together. Hence,
\nit cannot be said that the petitioner-companies as all India newspaper
\nestablishments are not viable whatever the financial incapacity of their
\nindividual units. After amendment of Section 2(d) retrospectively read with
\nthe addition of the Explanation to Section 10(4), the old provisions can no
\nlonger be pressed into service to contend against the grouping of the units
\nof the all India establishments, into one class.\n<\/p>\n
8. The other contentions advanced on behalf of the Indian Express
\nNewspapers (P) Ltd. are as follows. Firstly, it is contended that the
\nbenefit of the provisions of paragraph 12 of Section II of Part I of
\nChapter IX is not given to the petitioner-establishment while classifying
\nit. Secondly, while calculating the financial capacity, the award has made
\nno provision even for a reasonable depreciation and to that extent the
\nestimates of the capacity of the establishment to pay the revised wages are
\nseriously flawed. The third contention is that the Board has not considered
\nthe burden of retrospective effect it has given to its recommendations from
\n1.1.1988. Lastly, it is contended that the award has not taken into
\nconsideration the cost of newsprint which had in the meanwhile gone up by
\nabout 76.6 per cent.\n<\/p>\n
9. More or less similar contentions were raised on behalf of other
\npetitioner-establishments. We have made clear at the very outset that some
\nof these contentions raised disputed questions of facts and Ors. mixed
\nquestions of facts and law and hence we will not entertain them. In
\naddition, as far as Indian Express Newspapers (Pvt.) Ltd. is concerned the
\nrecord shows that the said petitioners had not produced any material before
\nthe Board in support of its aforesaid contentions which are for the first
\ntime advanced before this Court. In fact, the company had virtually
\nboycotted the proceedings of the Board.\n<\/p>\n
10. In view of what we have held above, we allow all the Writ Petitions and
\nTransfer Cases except T.C.N. 6 of 1990, only to the extent indicated below.\n<\/p>\n
The benefit given in paragraph 6(2) of Section II of Part I of Chapter IX
\nwill extend to all classes of the newspaper establishments as categorised
\nin paragraph 11 of the said Report and the units of the newspaper
\nestablishments in all the said classes shall not be stepped up by more than
\ntwo classes over and above the classes to which they belong according to
\ntheir own gross revenue.\n<\/p>\n
In view of our above conclusion, the award as modified, should be
\nimplemented by all the establishments w.e.f. 1.1.1988 and the respondent-
\nemployees should be paid wages w.e.f. the said date i.e., 1.1.1988. Where,
\nhowever, there have been settlements between the management and the
\nemployees the payment of wages and of arrears of wages will be governed by
\nthe terms of those settlements.\n<\/p>\n
There will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
In views of the above order by which T.C. No. 5 of 1990 is allowed as
\nabove, SLP (C) NO. 16356 of 1990 filed by the same petitioners in this
\nCourt, does not survive.\n<\/p>\n
In view of the order passed above in main matters, T.C. No. 6 of 1990
\nstands disposed of, as above.\n<\/p>\n
In view of our order in the main matters, as above, none of the
\nInterlocutory Applications survives,<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Indian Express Newspapers (P) … vs Union Of India And Others Etc. Etc on 23 September, 1994 Author: P Sawant Bench: Kuldip Singh, P.B. Sawant, N.P. Singh CASE NO.: Transfer Case (civil) 10 of 1990 PETITIONER: Indian Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. etc. etc. RESPONDENT: Union of India and others etc. etc. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-141699","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nIndian Express Newspapers (P) ... vs Union Of India And Others Etc. Etc on 23 September, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-express-newspapers-p-vs-union-of-india-and-others-etc-etc-on-23-september-1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Indian Express Newspapers (P) ... vs Union Of India And Others Etc. Etc on 23 September, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-express-newspapers-p-vs-union-of-india-and-others-etc-etc-on-23-september-1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1994-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-10T05:49:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-express-newspapers-p-vs-union-of-india-and-others-etc-etc-on-23-september-1994#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-express-newspapers-p-vs-union-of-india-and-others-etc-etc-on-23-september-1994\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Indian Express Newspapers (P) … vs Union Of India And Others Etc. Etc on 23 September, 1994\",\"datePublished\":\"1994-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-10T05:49:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-express-newspapers-p-vs-union-of-india-and-others-etc-etc-on-23-september-1994\"},\"wordCount\":5238,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-express-newspapers-p-vs-union-of-india-and-others-etc-etc-on-23-september-1994#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-express-newspapers-p-vs-union-of-india-and-others-etc-etc-on-23-september-1994\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-express-newspapers-p-vs-union-of-india-and-others-etc-etc-on-23-september-1994\",\"name\":\"Indian Express Newspapers (P) ... vs Union Of India And Others Etc. Etc on 23 September, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1994-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-10T05:49:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-express-newspapers-p-vs-union-of-india-and-others-etc-etc-on-23-september-1994#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-express-newspapers-p-vs-union-of-india-and-others-etc-etc-on-23-september-1994\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-express-newspapers-p-vs-union-of-india-and-others-etc-etc-on-23-september-1994#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Indian Express Newspapers (P) … vs Union Of India And Others Etc. Etc on 23 September, 1994\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Indian Express Newspapers (P) ... vs Union Of India And Others Etc. Etc on 23 September, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-express-newspapers-p-vs-union-of-india-and-others-etc-etc-on-23-september-1994","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Indian Express Newspapers (P) ... vs Union Of India And Others Etc. Etc on 23 September, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-express-newspapers-p-vs-union-of-india-and-others-etc-etc-on-23-september-1994","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1994-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-10T05:49:07+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-express-newspapers-p-vs-union-of-india-and-others-etc-etc-on-23-september-1994#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-express-newspapers-p-vs-union-of-india-and-others-etc-etc-on-23-september-1994"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Indian Express Newspapers (P) … vs Union Of India And Others Etc. Etc on 23 September, 1994","datePublished":"1994-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-10T05:49:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-express-newspapers-p-vs-union-of-india-and-others-etc-etc-on-23-september-1994"},"wordCount":5238,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-express-newspapers-p-vs-union-of-india-and-others-etc-etc-on-23-september-1994#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-express-newspapers-p-vs-union-of-india-and-others-etc-etc-on-23-september-1994","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-express-newspapers-p-vs-union-of-india-and-others-etc-etc-on-23-september-1994","name":"Indian Express Newspapers (P) ... vs Union Of India And Others Etc. Etc on 23 September, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1994-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-10T05:49:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-express-newspapers-p-vs-union-of-india-and-others-etc-etc-on-23-september-1994#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-express-newspapers-p-vs-union-of-india-and-others-etc-etc-on-23-september-1994"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-express-newspapers-p-vs-union-of-india-and-others-etc-etc-on-23-september-1994#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Indian Express Newspapers (P) … vs Union Of India And Others Etc. Etc on 23 September, 1994"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/141699","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=141699"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/141699\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=141699"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=141699"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=141699"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}