Newspaper industry wage scales: INS' contention

NEW DELHI, MAY 6. Mrs. Shobha Subrahmanyan, president, Indian Newspaper Society (INS), in a statement has set out the circumstances which compelled the Society to file a writ petition in the Delhi High Court seeking its intervention in regard to certain patent errors contained in the tentative proposals published by the Manisana Wage Boards relating to pay scales of employees in newspaper establishments.

Briefly, the background is that the Wage Boards by a majority decision had decided on increases in the pay scales of working journalists and non-journalists in newspaper establishments of 42.5 per cent for Class I to V categories of newspapers, 35 per cent to Class IA; 30 per cent for Classes I to V and 20 per cent to Classes VI to VIII categories. The employers representatives had of course urged that the industry did not have the capacity to pay higher wages to their employees in view of their difficult financial position; and that their operations would not be able to sustain any higher wage burden than those which currently prevailed.

However, from the tentative proposals as published on December 30, 1999, it transpires that contrary to the majority decision, which provides for a graduated increase in pay scales of employees, the percentage of increase being related to the Class of newspaper establishments on the basis that the smaller ones would suffer a smaller increase in wages in percentage terms and the larger ones a correspondingly higher increase, in actual fact the lower classes have to bear a higher burden in percentage terms than the higher classes. This is clearly demonstrated in the table below, which shows the actual impact class-wise, on newspapers of the proposed increase of pay scales of employees in the tentative proposals in percentage terms:

It will be evident that actually the tentative proposals impose a higher burden of increase on pay scales of employees in the lower classes of newspapers, generally comprising small and medium category of newspaper establishments, with the burden reducing in a graduated manner for the higher classes. This is exactly the reverse of what was intended and clearly amounts to ``an error apparent on the face of the record.'' This distortion is palpably glaring inasmuch as the smallest newspapers in Class VIII would have to bear a burden of over 100 per cent increased pay scales instead of 20 per cent as envisaged.

It is well known that many newspaper establishments, particularly in the small and medium categories, operate on thin margins and their survival would be in jeopardy if they are forced to bear the burden of such enormous increase in the wage bill. This could result in large scale unemployment in the industry. While the INS is fully alive to the aspirations of the employees for better wages, the issue has to be decided rationally on the basis of the capacity of the various newspaper establishments to bear the burden devolving on them.

An application was submitted to the Chairman, Wage Boards, on March 28, 2000, by INS for a review of the tentative proposals since the proposed scales of pay as notified in the proposals were vitiated by errors in application of the guidelines agreed at the meetings of the Wage Boards.

It was evident that the revised scales of pay suffered a major error inasmuch as the tentative proposals actually impose a higher burden of increase on pay scales of employees in the lower classes of newspapers with the burden reducing gradually for the higher classes.

This is exactly the reverse of what was intended and clearly amounted to an error apparent on the face of the record. Hence there was a need to recalculate the scales of pay of employees in all classes of newspaper establishments and thereafter give an opportunity to all concerned to react to the revised proposals. As the Wage Boards did not pass an order on INS' review petition, the Society was compelled to file a writ petition in the Delhi High Court which was heard on April 18 and notice issued to the Wage Boards and Union of India. The matter is now sub judice and the case is listed for hearing on May 9.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : National
Previous : Uma Bharti gives police the slip, to continue fast
Next     : Christian MPs to study minorities panel report