By S&S Co. Advocates & Solicitors · Published 2 September 2026 · Informational content, not legal advice, see our disclaimer
Two Functions, One Section, Two Different Answers
The Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 gives journalists and other newspaper employees a route to recover unpaid wages and other dues from their employer. Section 17 of that Act splits the process into two steps. Under Section 17(1), the State Government can issue a certificate for recovery of the dues once they are quantified, and it can delegate that certificate-issuing function to a specified authority. Under Section 17(2), where there is a genuine dispute about whether the amount is owed at all, the State Government refers that dispute to a Labour Court for adjudication.
In Sudhir v. Head of Human Resource, Dainik Bhaskar Group (D.B. Corp. Ltd.), the Supreme Court held that only the first of these two functions can be delegated. Section 17(2) contains no delegation clause at all, so a State Government cannot hand off the decision to refer a dues dispute to a Labour Court to an Additional or Deputy Commissioner of Labour, even where a general delegation notification purports to cover the whole of Section 17.
Why the Drafting Matters More Than It Looks
Employers and employees both tend to treat a reference order as a formality: a government department looks at a complaint, decides a Labour Court should hear it, and passes the matter along. The Dainik Bhaskar ruling is a reminder that the identity of the officer actually making that decision can itself become a live legal issue, and one that can unwind a Labour Court proceeding that has already run its course on the merits.
The Court's reasoning rested on a simple comparison: Parliament wrote a delegation power into Section 17(1) in express terms, and wrote nothing of the kind into Section 17(2). Courts generally read that kind of contrast as deliberate rather than accidental, so the absence of a delegation clause in Section 17(2) was treated as Parliament's intention to keep that particular decision with the State Government itself, not as an oversight that an executive notification could quietly fix.
What This Means Beyond the Newspaper Industry
Many State Labour Departments operate on the basis of long-standing delegation notifications that hand routine functions, including making references under various labour statutes, down to Additional and Deputy Commissioners of Labour, Labour Commissioners, or other officers. The Dainik Bhaskar ruling does not automatically invalidate those other delegations, because the outcome in each case depends on how the particular statute is drafted. But it does put a clear question on the table for any statute under which a reference, as opposed to a purely administrative or recovery function, has been delegated: does the specific provision actually say delegation is permitted, or has that simply been assumed because a broader delegation notification exists?
For employers facing a Labour Court reference that originated from a delegated officer rather than the State Government directly, this ruling gives a concrete basis to examine whether the underlying reference itself was validly made, a threshold issue that, if successful, can dispose of a matter without the Labour Court ever reaching the substance of the dues claim. For employees and unions, the practical lesson is the opposite: where a reference has gone through a delegated officer, it may be worth confirming the statute's own delegation language before investing heavily in litigating the underlying wage claim on the assumption that the reference itself cannot be challenged.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does this ruling affect references made under the general Industrial Disputes Act?
The Supreme Court's reasoning in this case was specific to the structure of Section 17 of the Working Journalists Act, which separately addresses recovery and reference. Whether a similar argument succeeds under a different statute depends on how that statute's own delegation language is drafted, so it should not be assumed to automatically carry over.
What happens to references already made by a delegated officer before this ruling?
The judgment's practical effect on references already acted upon is a fact-specific question that depends on the Court's precise directions and whether an affected party challenges the particular reference; employers and employees in pending matters arising from a delegated reference should take specific advice rather than assuming a uniform outcome.
Can the State Government simply reissue a corrected delegation notification?
Not for the reference function itself. Since the Court read Section 17(2) as containing no delegation power at all, a notification cannot cure the defect by better drafting; only an amendment to the statute itself could change this, unless the State Government chooses to exercise the reference power directly.
References & Further Reading
This article references the following statute and judicial decision. Case details have been cross-checked against more than one published source at the time of writing; readers should verify against the official judgment for any specific matter.
- Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, Section 17.
- Sudhir & Ors. v. Head of Human Resource, Dainik Bhaskar Group (D.B. Corp. Ltd.) & Ors., reported as 2026 INSC 834, decided 11 August 2026.
- See our Legal News coverage and Employment & Labour practice page for further detail.