A part-time employee who satisfies the test prescribed by S. 2(b) of the Working Journalists Industrial Disputes Act, 1955 cannot be excluded from the definition of "working journalist" merely because his employment is part-time.

Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : The principal question which arisen in this appeal is whether the respondent B. Somayajulu is a working journalist under S. 2 (b) of the Working Journalists Industrial Disputes Act, 1955 (No. 1 of 1955) (hereinafter called the Act ). That question arisen in this way. On the 19th February 1935, the respondent was appointed a Correspondent at Guntur by the appellant, the management of the Express Newspapers Ltd. He did that work continuously until the 20th of October, 1955 on which date his services were terminated. The Andhra Union of Working Journalists, Elluru, then took up the respondent s cause and alleged that his services had been terminated by the appellant without any justification and that as a working journalist, he was entitled to reinstatement and compensation for the period during which he was not allowed to work by the appellant in consequence of the order passed by the appellant terminating his services. This dispute was referred by the Government of Andhra Pradesh for adjudication to the Labour Court, Guntur. The question referred for adjudication was whether the termination of services of Mr. B. Somayajulu, Correspondent of Indian Express Newspapers at Guntur was justified? If not to what relief was he entitled? Before the Labour Court, the respondent claimed that in addition to reinstatement, compensation should be awarded to him from 13th October, 1955 to 1st May, 1956 at Rs. 75/- per mensem and thereafter up to the date of reinstatement at the rate prescribed by the Wage Board for Working Journalists under the provisions of the Act.

2. The appellant disputed this calm on several grounds. It urged that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the reference, because the appointment of the respondent had been made at Madras, the money due to him was sent from Madras, and so, the appropriate Government which could have made there reference was the Madras Government and not the Government of Andhra Pradesh. This argument has been rejected by the Labour Court. It was also urged that the reference was invalid since the order of reference in terms did not refer to S. 10 (1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act under which the power to refer had been exercised. The Labour Court repelled this contention as well. Then it was alleged that the dispute referred to the Labour Court for its adjudication was an individual dispute and had not been properly sponsored by any Union. The Labour Court was not impressed even by this plea. That is how the preliminary objections raised by the appellant were all rejected.

3. On the merits, the appellant urged that the respondent was not a working journalist under S. 2 (b) of the Act. In support of this plea the appellant averred that the respondent was a part-time correspondent unattached to any particular newspaper establishment, that a year or so later he was appointed as a selling agent of the publications of the appellant, such as the Express Newspapers, Dinamani and Andhra Pradesh at Guntur which assignment was given to him on his depositing Rs. 6,000/- which was later raised to Rs. 7,000/-. According to the appellant, as such selling agent, the respondent was making on an average about Rs. 1,500/- per mensem as commission, whereas, as a corespondent he was first paid on lineage basis and later an honorarium was fixed at Rs. 50/- which was subsequently raised to Rs. 75/- p. m. This latter amount was paid to him until his services were terminated. The appellant, therefore, contended that the avocation of a moffusil correspondent was not the respondent s principal avocation, and so, he could not claim the benefit of the status of a working journalist under S. 2 (b) of the Act.

4. The Labour Court took the view that part time workers were outside the purview of the Act. It also referred incidentally to the commission which the respondent received as a selling agent and made some observations to the effect that the payment to the respondent for his wo