A correspondent is a working journalist within the meaning of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, even if he is a part-time worker.

( 1 ) THE principal point that culls for decision in both these petitions is whether a newspaper correspondent is a working journalist within the terms oi the Working Journalists (Conditions ol Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955.

( 2 ) THESE petitions seek the issuance of writs of certiorari to call for the records of the Labour Courts, Andhra Pradesh, one situated at Guntur and the other at Hyderabad. The Labour Court of Hyderabad sitting at Guntur decided that a correspondent is a working journalist as defined in the Act, while the other court held that a correspondent did not satisfy the definition of working journalist in the Act. As the facts of these two cases are similar and as the principle evolved in one would govern the other, it is sufficient to deal with one of them. For this purpose, we will consider the tacts ol W. P. No. 677 of 1958. The petitioner was engaged on 12-2-35 as a correspondent at Guntur by the Express Newspapers Limited and he was being paid remuneration on lineage basis. A year later, he was appointed as selling agent of, the Express Newspapers, Dinamani and Andhra Prabha, Guntur on a deposit of Rs. 6,000. 00, In course of time, his remuneration was raised to Rs. 75. 00 per mensem In June 1955, his agency was terminated but he was continued as a correspondent on the same basis as before. On the 13th of October, 1955, his services as a correspondent were dispensed with. Meanwhile, the Working Journalists (Industrial Disputes), Act (Act I of 1955) wag passed. It received the assent of the President on 12/03/1955 and it took effect on the 14th of March 1955. This Act was substituted some months later by the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act: It was passed to consolidate and better the conditions of service of working journalists. Both the enactments were designed to confer benefits on working journalists.

( 3 ) TAKING advantage of the Working Journalists (Industrial; Disputes) Act, 1955, the Andhra Union of Working Journalists, Eluru, requested the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner. As this did not evoke any response from the 2nd respondent they approached the Government and the Government made this reference under Section 19 (I) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The dispute referred to the Industrial Court was; whether the termination of services of Sri B. Somayajulu, Correspondent of Indian Express Newspapers at Guntur is justified; it not, to what relief is he entitled. The Labour Court held that the petitioner was not a working journalist within the scope of the Act as he was only a part-time worker as mofussil correspondent of the Indian Express Newspapers and was receiving an honorarium and secondly that the Act, which was passed in December 1955, was not retrospective in effect and as such he could not claim to be governed by the provisions of the Act. This view of the Labour Court is impugned before us.

( 4 ) IT is urged on behalf of the petitioner that a correspondent of a newspaper is a working journalist so as to entitle him to all the advantages of the Act. On the other hand, the case of the 2nd respondent is that a mofussil correspondent, who is only a part-time worker, contributing news items only occasionally for which he gets honorarium Will not be covered by the definition of "working journalist" occurring in the Act, that he is tree to indulge in other trades and avocations and as such he could not claim the full benefits of a permanent employee. It is only a journalist, who was a full time employee of a newspaper, that could derive any advantage from that Act and the petitioner, whose principal avocation was distribution of Express Newspapers, Dinamani and Andhra Prabha, could not bo treated as a working journalist.

( 5 ) THE question for consideration is which of the two contentions is sound. For a decision of this point we have to look at the relevant provisions of both the Acts. At the time of t