Working journalists are not classified as 'employees' under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, limiting their ability to file complaints.

JUDGMENT :

(Nitin Jamdar, J.) :

These Petitions are placed before us upon the reference made by the learned Single Judge to answer the question of maintainability of a complaint of unfair labour practice by a working journalist before an Industrial Court on the basis that a working journalist is covered by the definition of "employee" under Section 3 (5) of the MAHARASHTRA RECOGNITION OF TRADE UNIONS AND PREVENTION OF UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES ACT , 1971.

2. Writ Petition Nos. 9112 of 2019 and 12022 of 2019 are cross-petitions challenging the order passed by the Industrial Court in the Complaint filed by Indrakumar Jain, a working journalist. The Industrial Court has dismissed the complaint. Writ Petition No.9112 of 2019 is filed by Indrakumar Jain challenging the order of the Industrial Court in its entirety as his complaint has been dismissed holding that he is not an 'employee' under Section 3 (5) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices (MRTU & PULP) Act, 1971. The employer, Newspaper establishment-Dainik Bhaskar, has filed Writ Petition No.12022 of 2019 to the limited extent of findings about the absence of liability of Indrakumar Jain.

3. Writ Petition No. 3541 of 2019 involves a dispute between a newspaper establishment- Pioneer Book and Devendra Pratap Singh, a working journalist. Pioneer had objected to the maintainability of the complaint by Devendra Pratap Singh filed under the provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act on the ground that he does not fall in the definition of the term 'employee' within the meaning of Section 3 (5) of the MRTU & PULP Act. The Labour Court directed Pioneer to reinstate Devendra Pratap Singh with full back-wages and continuity of service with arrears of wages. The Industrial Court rejected the Revision Application, and both orders are challenged.

4. When these Petitions came for consideration before the learned Single Judge (S.C. Gupte, J.) arguments centered around the issue as to whether working journalists could be considered as ‘employee’ under MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. Following decisions of the learned Single Judges of this court were placed on record.

(a) Bennett Coleman Co. Ltd. v/s. Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha, 1994 LAB. I.C. 1889 (D.R. Dhanuka, J.)( referred to as Bennet Coleman-1 )

(b) Bennett Coleman v/s. Gurbir Mahavir Singh , O.S.W.P.687/1988 dtd. 27.04.1994, (D.R. Dhanuka, J.) (referred to as Bennet Coleman-2).

(c) Shashikaran R. Shrivastava V/s. Bennett Coleman & Co., 2017 II CLR H.C. Bom.65 (R.P. SondurBaldota, J.),

(d) Mahesh H. Rajput v/s. United News of India , 2017 III CLR H.C. Bom. 1002, (R.G. Ketkar J.)

The learned Single Judge (S.C. Gupte, J.) opined that there existed a conflict in the views taken in these judgments and the issue was of importance and directed the registry to place the matters before the learned Chief Justice to consider constituting a larger bench. There is no separate issue framed and by consent of parties, we take observations in paragraph 6 of the referral order as the question referred by the Single Judge. It reads thus :-

"6. In the premises, the Registry may place this Petition before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for assigning it to a Division Bench on the question of maintainability of a complaint of unfair labour practice by a working journalist before an Industrial Court on the basis that he is covered by the definition of "employee" under Section 3(5) of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971."

5. The interplay between the three statutory provisions is involved. They are :

(a) Section 3 of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (Work