Sudhir & Orsv.Head of Human Resource, Dainik Bhaskar Group & Ors

Supreme Court Holds State Government Cannot Delegate Power to Refer Disputes Under Section 17(2) of Working Journalists Act

Case Snapshot

Case Name: Sudhir & Ors. v. Head of Human Resource, Dainik Bhaskar Group & Ors

Citation: 2026 INSC 834

Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu

Date of Judgment: August 11, 2026

Area of Law: Labour Law, Working Journalists Act, Delegation of Powers

The Judgment in One Line

State Government's delegation of its power under Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists Act to subordinate authorities is impermissible; however, Article 142 saves pending proceedings.

Why This Judgment Matters

This landmark judgment clarifies the scope of delegation under the Working Journalists Act. The Supreme Court held that while Section 17(1) permits the State Government to delegate its power to issue recovery certificates, Section 17(2)—which empowers the State to refer disputes to Labour Courts—does not allow such delegation. Applying the maxim unius est exclusio alterius (express mention of one excludes the other), the Court ruled that the legislature intentionally omitted delegation in Section 17(2). The judgment protects the sanctity of statutory schemes and prevents dilution of the State's responsibility. However, using Article 142, the Court saved pending proceedings by directing the State Government to ratify references already made.

Background

The Working Journalists Act, 1955 provides for recovery of dues owed to newspaper employees. Section 17(1) allows the State Government or a specified authority to issue a recovery certificate. Section 17(2) empowers the State Government to refer disputes regarding the amount due to a Labour Court. The Government of Maharashtra (GoM) issued a notification delegating its power under Section 17(2) to Additional Commissioners of Labour and Deputy Commissioners of Labour. These authorities made references to Labour Courts. The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad and Nagpur Benches) held that such delegation was impermissible and quashed the references. The employees and unions appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists Act permits the State Government to delegate its power to refer disputes to Labour Courts.

2. Whether the Government of Maharashtra's notification delegating such power was valid.

3. What should be the fate of pending proceedings and awards already passed pursuant to such invalid references.

What Did the Supreme Court Hold?

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals but used Article 142 to save pending proceedings. The Court's reasoning was detailed:

No Delegation Under Section 17(2): The Court applied the maxim unius est exclusio alterius. Section 17(1) expressly permits delegation to a specified authority, while Section 17(2) contains no such provision. The legislature intentionally conferred the power to refer disputes solely on the State Government. The specified authority under Section 17(1) becomes functus officio once a dispute is reported, and the follow-up action under Section 17(2) must be taken by the State Government alone.

Distinction Between Administrative and Judicial Functions: While an authority can delegate administrative functions, the ultimate responsibility for exercise of power cannot be delegated unless expressly authorized. The reference under Section 17(2) requires the State Government to apply its mind and reach satisfaction that a dispute exists—a function that cannot be delegated.

Bennett Coleman Distinguished: The argument that Section 17 constitutes a "single scheme" was rejected. The observation in Samarjit Ghosh v. Bennett Coleman that Section 17 is a single scheme only meant that the steps are sequential. It did not authorize delegation under Section 17(2).

Notification Held Invalid: The Government of Maharashtra's notification was ultra vires Section 17(2). The specified authorities had no jurisdiction to make references.

Article 142 Directions: Recognizing the lapse of time and the repeal of the Act, the Court declined to invalidate all proceedings. It directed the State Government to revisit all references, record fresh satisfaction, and issue fresh references if warranted. Pending proceedings shall not terminate, and awards already passed can be challenged on merits.

Key Legal Principles

1. Unius est exclusio alterius — express mention of one excludes the other; where delegation is expressly provided in one sub-section but not in another, the absence is intentional.

2. Delegation of statutory power requires express authority — the maxim delegatus non potest delegare applies unless delegation is expressly or impliedly authorized.

3. Administrative functions can be delegated, but ultimate responsibility cannot — the State Government must apply its mind to the reference under Section 17(2).

4. Beneficial legislation cannot override plain language — while the Working Journalists Act is beneficial, courts cannot read words that are not present.

5. Article 142 can save proceedings — the Court can pass orders to do complete justice and prevent hardship caused by procedural irregularities.

6. Ratification principles may apply — where proceedings were initiated in good faith under a notification, the State Government can ratify them.

Important Precedents

Samarjit Ghosh v. Bennett Coleman & Co., (1987) 4 SCC 387

• Held that Section 17 constitutes a single scheme; the State Government before which an application is made is competent to refer disputes. Distinguished: the case did not involve delegation.

Pradyot Kumar Bose v. Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court, (1955) 2 SCR 1331

• Held that a statutory authority can obtain materials vicariously but cannot delegate the ultimate responsibility unless expressly permitted.

Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd. v. ESIC, (1994) 5 SCC 346

• Held that sub-delegation requires express or implied authority; the maxim delegatus non potest delegare applies strictly.

All India Reporter Karamchari Sangh v. All India Reporter Pvt. Ltd., (1988) 4 SCC 54

• Held that the Working Journalists Act is a beneficial legislation and should be interpreted in favour of employees, but this does not override plain statutory language.

Marathwada University v. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan, (1989) 3 SCC 132

• Held that principles of ratification do not apply to exercise of statutory powers. Distinguished on facts as the present case involved proceedings initiated in good faith under a notification.

Practical Impact

For advocates: This judgment is crucial when challenging or defending references made under Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists Act. It establishes that only the State Government can make such references; any delegation is invalid. However, the Article 142 directions save pending proceedings, so employers cannot automatically terminate proceedings based on this judgment.

For future litigation: Since the Working Journalists Act has been repealed, new references under Section 17(2) will not arise. However, the principles of delegation and statutory interpretation apply to other statutes. The judgment reinforces that courts will not read delegation into a statute where it is not expressly provided.

May be cited: In any case involving delegation of statutory powers, particularly where one provision expressly permits delegation and another does not, and in cases where the validity of references made by subordinate authorities is challenged.

Lawcurb Quick Insight

The Court's use of Article 142 to save proceedings is a masterstroke. While holding the delegation invalid, it prevented the termination of hundreds of pending cases and ensured that employees are not left remediless. This balances legal principle with practical justice.

Lawcurb Practice Note

When challenging a reference under Section 17(2), check whether it was made by the State Government or a delegated authority. If delegated, argue that the reference is invalid. However, be aware that the Court's Article 142 directions may save proceedings, so seek a fresh reference by the State Government.

Remember This Ratio

The State Government's power to refer disputes under Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists Act cannot be delegated; express delegation in Section 17(1) implies its exclusion in Section 17(2).

Exam Lens

Q: What is the significance of the maxim unius est exclusio alterius in statutory interpretation? A: It means that the express mention of one thing excludes others. Where the legislature has expressly provided for delegation in one sub-section but not in another, the absence in the latter is intentional and cannot be supplied by implication.

Q: Can an authority delegate its statutory functions? A: Generally, no, unless expressly or impliedly authorized. The maxim delegatus non potest delegare applies. An authority may, however, obtain assistance from subordinates for administrative tasks, but the ultimate decision-making responsibility cannot be delegated.

Q: What is the role of Article 142 in saving proceedings? A: Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice. In this case, despite holding the delegation invalid, the Court used Article 142 to ensure that pending proceedings are not terminated, directing the State Government to ratify them.

Final Outcome

• Appeals dismissed — the High Court's judgments holding delegation invalid are upheld.

• Delegation held invalid — the Government of Maharashtra's notification delegating power under Section 17(2) is ultra vires.

• Article 142 directions — the State Government shall revisit all references made by delegated authorities and record fresh satisfaction.

• Proceedings saved — pending proceedings shall not terminate; the Government shall issue fresh references if warranted.

• Awards can be challenged — awards already passed can be challenged on merits before the High Court.

• Time limit — the Government shall complete the exercise within six months.

Lawcurb Verdict

This judgment is a significant clarification of the law on delegation of statutory powers. By holding that Section 17(2) does not permit delegation, the Court has upheld the principle that the State Government must apply its mind to references under the Working Journalists Act. The use of Article 142 to save pending proceedings ensures that employees are not prejudiced by procedural irregularities. A balanced decision that upholds legal principles while protecting the interests of working journalists.

This report is prepared by Lawcurb for educational and informational purposes only. It is a concise summary of the judgment and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers are encouraged to refer to the original judgment before relying on any legal proposition.