Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute

Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the case of DB Corp Limited & Another v. Davinder Kumar & Another, directed the Industrial Tribunal to reassess the classification of DB Corp Limited under the Majithia Wage Board recommendations. The company was initially classified under Class-I based on gross revenue figures sourced from Wikipedia, but the High Court found this method unreliable, especially since DB Corp later submitted proper financial documents, including balance sheets and unit-wise revenue data, showing its average gross revenue was below Rs. 1,000 crores. The case was remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

DB Corp Limited, a prominent newspaper publisher, was classified as a Class-I establishment under the Majithia Wage Board recommendations based on gross revenue data sourced from Wikipedia. The respondent, Davinder Kumar, a former employee, filed for wage recovery under Section 17 of the Working Journalists Act, claiming differential wages as per the Majithia recommendations. The Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal ruled in the respondent’s favor, relying on the Wikipedia data provided by Kumar due to DB Corp's failure to submit its financial documents.

DB Corp challenged this classification, arguing that the Tribunal had wrongly relied on inaccurate Wikipedia data and that the company's gross revenue, when properly accounted for, fell below the Class-I threshold of Rs. 1,000 crores. They also raised concerns regarding limitation and maintainability.

The key issue was whether the Tribunal could rely on data from Wikipedia to classify the petitioner under the Majithia Wage Board. DB Corp argued that this method was improper and that the Tribunal should have waited for authenticated financial documents.

DB Corp contended that the application for wage recovery was time-barred under Section 33-C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and should have been dismissed by the Tribunal.

The petitioners questioned whether the respondent's application was maintainable under Section 17 of the Working Journalists Act, 1955, arguing that it did not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

The High Court noted that DB Corp had failed to submit its financial documents before the Tribunal but had now presented those records, including balance sheets and unit-wise revenue details. These showed that the company’s average gross revenue for the relevant years was below Rs. 1,000 crores, making its Class-I classification under the Majithia Wage Board questionable. As a result, the court remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration based on the newly submitted financial evidence.

"The Tribunal was bereft of these documents and was bound to record findings on the basis of available figures," the court noted, adding that the Tribunal must now reexamine the classification in light of the actual financial data.

The court held that reliance on Wikipedia data, an unreliable source for legal determinations, was inappropriate. While acknowledging that the Tribunal had no other data at the time, the court emphasized that proper financial records must now be considered.

"The classification of an establishment cannot be based on Wikipedia data when official financial records are available," the court stated, remanding the case for reconsideration.

The court rejected DB Corp's argument that the application was barred by limitation. It clarified that while Section 33-C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act imposes a one-year limitation period, no such limitation exists under Section 33-C(2). Similarly, the court held that Section 17 of the Working Journalists Act, 1955, which governs wage recovery claims, does not prescribe a limitation period.

"The limitation period of one year under Section 33-C(1) cannot be imported into applications made under Section 33-C(2) or Section 17 of the 1955 Act," the court ruled, affirming the Tribunal's rejection of the limitation defense.

The court found no fault in the Tribunal’s decision on maintainability. DB Corp’s objections were dismissed, and the court upheld the Tribunal's findings that the workman's application for wage recovery was properly maintainable under the relevant legal provisions.

"The question of maintainability has been explicitly answered by the Labour Court, and no infirmity has been found in its reasoning," the court observed.

The High Court remanded the matter to the Industrial Tribunal to reassess the classification of DB Corp Limited based on its newly submitted financial documents. The Tribunal is now required to determine whether DB Corp falls within Class-I under the Majithia Wage Board recommendations after reviewing accurate revenue data. The issue of limitation was resolved in favor of the workman, and the Tribunal's findings on maintainability were upheld.

Date of Decision: 19/09/2024

DB Corp Limited & Another v. Davinder Kumar & Another