The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of S. 17(2) of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, in determining the maintainability of a dispute regarding the status of a working journalist and the recovery of salary due to the employee from the employer.

1. This petition is by the Management of Samyukta Karnataka, daily newspaper praying for quashing the award made by the Labour Court, Bangalore on a reference made under S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act read with Sub-s. (2) of S. 17 of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, ("the Act" for short).

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:- Respondent-1 was a News Agent at Holenarasipura. He was entrusted with the selling of Samyukta Karnataka daily newspaper since 1971. According to the petitioner, respondent 1 was also selling several other newspapers. Respondent-1 was, in addition to being a news agent, appointed as a correspondent of Samyukta Karnataka daily on 12th August, 1971. Respondent-1 made a claim before the petitioner that he should be paid salary in the pay scale of Rs. 315-25-440-804-50-1000 from 12th August, 1971 till 28th February 1979. The total amount of arrears of salary claimed on that basis was Rs. 42,253-50 Ps. The pay scale claimed was the pay scale applicable to a correspondent in accordance with the conditions of service fixed under the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. As the request of the 1st respondent was not complied with by the petitioner, he approached the Working Journalists Association requesting it to raise a dispute. The Association, however, asked the petitioner to raise a dispute before the State Government. By an order dated 22nd January, 1979, the State Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Bangalore. The points for dispute referred for adjudication were these; "I. Is the Management justified in denying the status of Correspondent (working Journalist) to Sri M. L. Satyanarayana Rao and the corresponding emoluments as per Wages Board Recommendations applicable to working Journalists, from the date of his appointment i.e., 12th August, 1971 ? II. If not, to what reliefs Sri Satyanarayana Rao is entitled ?" Claim statement was filed by the 1st respondent and the objection statement was filed by the petitioner. The Labour Court by its award on 23rd June, 1984 (Annexure-A), gave a declaration that the 1st respondent was a working journalist and therefore, he was entitled to the emoluments prescribed for a correspondent. Aggrieved by the said award the petitioner has presented this petition. Sri Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the dispute itself was not maintainable for the reason that dispute was not relating to termination of service which alone would have entitled the 1st respondent to raise a dispute individually under S. 2-A of the I.D. Act and as in the present case, the dispute was relating to conditions of service other than termination of service it was not maintainable. He submitted that the Labour Court had wrongly rejected that contention in the following words : "Under S. 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, any dispute between a workman and the Management is deemed to be an industrial dispute. Consequently, the workman can himself espouse his cause." and that the view was presently erroneous.

3. The Labour Court, strangely, has overlooked the words in S. 2-A which expressly speak of a dispute arising out of termination of service, whatever be the manner of termination of service, and does not cover every type of dispute between an individual workman and Management, of an Industry. The view is clearly untenable.

4. Sri Padke, learned Counsel for respondent-1 also did not support the above view taken by the Labour Court. He, however, pointed out that there was a special provision under S. 17 of the Act which enabled an individual working journalist to raise a dispute regarding non-payment of salary in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder and therefore, the reference made by the State Government was competent under the above provision. S. 17 of the Act reads :

"17. Recovery of money due from an employe