M/S. KASTURI AND SONS (PRIVATE) LTD. versus SHRI N. SALIVATEESWARAN AND ANOTHER

M/S. KASTURI AND SONS (PRIVATE) LTD. versus SHRI N. SALIVATEESWARAN AND ANOTHER

The authority specified under Section 17 of the Working Journalists Act, 1955, does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of disputed claims; its role is limited to a summary enquiry regarding the recovery of amounts already determined to be due.

Parties
Petitioner: M/s. Kasturi and Sons (Private) Ltd.; Respondent No. 1: Shri N. Salivateeswaran; Respondent No. 2: M. R. Meher, I.C.S. (Retired); Intervener: C. K. Daphtanf, Solicitor-General of India; Intervener: B. Sen, for the Attorney-General of India; Intervener: K. Kurruir; Respondent No. 1: Purshottam Tricumdas, P. Ramuramy
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 March 1958
Procedural Posture
Original Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Petition dismissed on technical ground of maintainability under Article 32.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Authority Under Working Journalists Act, Application of Article 32, Recovery of Dues by Working Journalists, Validity of Section 17 Working Journalists Act
Labour Law Constitutional Law Jurisdiction of Authority Under Working Journalists Act Application of Article 32 Recovery of Dues by Working Journalists Validity of Section 17 Working Journalists Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M/s. Kasturi and Sons (Private) Ltd.

Petitioner

Shri N. Salivateeswaran

Respondent No. 1

M. R. Meher, I.C.S. (Retired)

Respondent No. 2

C. K. Daphtanf, Solicitor-General of India

Intervener

B. Sen, for the Attorney-General of India

Intervener

K. Kurruir

Intervener

Purshottam Tricumdas, P. Ramuramy

Respondent No. 1

Procedural Posture

Original Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the authority specified under Section 17 of the Working Journalists Act, 1955, have jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of disputed claims?
  2. 2 Is Section 17 of the Working Journalists Act, 1955 ultra vires the Constitution?
  3. 3 Is the application maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution?

Ratio Decidendi

The authority specified under Section 17 of the Working Journalists Act, 1955, does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of disputed claims; its role is limited to a summary enquiry regarding the recovery of amounts already determined to be due.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed on technical ground of maintainability under Article 32.

Orders

  • Second respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the first respondent's application under Section 17.
  • No order as to costs.