Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and R.K.Choudhary JJ.
Behar Journals Ltd.
Versus
Ali Hasan
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 216 of 1957 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 03, 1959
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - WORKING JOURNALIST - STANDING ORDERS - PROBATIONARY PERIOD - TERMINATION OF SERVICE - NOTICE - REINSTATEMENT - [ACT XLV OF 1947, SEC. 2(F), SEC. 3(1), SEC. 7, SEC. 10(1), ORDER 2(B), ORDER 2(C)] - THE COURT HELD THAT A WORKING JOURNALIST WHO HAD COMPLETED HIS PROBATIONARY PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS WAS ENTITLED TO A NOTICE BEFORE HIS SERVICE COULD BE TERMINATED. THE COURT ALSO HELD THAT THE TERMINATION OF HIS SERVICE WITHOUT A NOTICE WAS VOID AND THAT HE WAS ENTITLED TO REINSTATEMENT.
Fact of the Case:
THE PETITIONER, A NEWSPAPER COMPANY, DISCHARGED THE RESPONDENT, A SUB-EDITOR, FROM SERVICE WITHOUT GIVING HIM A NOTICE OR AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE. THE RESPONDENT WAS A MEMBER OF A UNION THAT HAD GONE ON STRIKE. THE UNION AND THE COMPANY REFERRED THE DISPUTE TO AN INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, WHICH ORDERED THE REINSTATEMENT OF THE RESPONDENT. THE COMPANY CHALLENGED THE AWARD OF THE TRIBUNAL.
Finding of the Court:
THE COURT HELD THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS A WORKING JOURNALIST WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT AND THAT THE REFERENCE TO THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL WAS VALID. THE COURT ALSO HELD THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD COMPLETED HIS PROBATIONARY PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS AND WAS ENTITLED TO A NOTICE BEFORE HIS SERVICE COULD BE TERMINATED. THE COURT FURTHER HELD THAT THE TERMINATION OF HIS SERVICE WITHOUT A NOTICE WAS VOID AND THAT HE WAS ENTITLED TO REINSTATEMENT.
Issues: 1. WHETHER THE RESPONDENT WAS A WORKING JOURNALIST WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT. 2. WHETHER THE REFERENCE TO THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL WAS VALID. 3. WHETHER THE RESPONDENT HAD COMPLETED HIS PROBATIONARY PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS. 4. WHETHER THE RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO A NOTICE BEFORE HIS SERVICE COULD BE TERMINATED. 5. WHETHER THE TERMINATION OF HIS SERVICE WITHOUT A NOTICE WAS VOID. 6. WHETHER THE RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO REINSTATEMENT.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. THE COURT HELD THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS A WORKING JOURNALIST WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT BECAUSE HE WAS A SUB-EDITOR AND, THEREFORE, A PERSON WHOSE PRINCIPAL AVOCATION WAS THAT OF A JOURNALIST. 2. THE COURT HELD THAT THE REFERENCE TO THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL WAS VALID BECAUSE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND THE UNION WAS A DISPUTE BETWEEN AN EMPLOYER AND A WORKMAN WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT. 3. THE COURT HELD THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD COMPLETED HIS PROBATIONARY PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS BECAUSE THERE WAS NO COMPLAINT OF UNSATISFACTORY WORK AGAINST HIM DURING THAT PERIOD. 4. THE COURT HELD THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO A NOTICE BEFORE HIS SERVICE COULD BE TERMINATED BECAUSE HE WAS A PERMANENT WORKMAN WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CERTIFIED STANDING ORDERS OF THE COMPANY. 5. THE COURT HELD THAT THE TERMINATION OF HIS SERVICE WITHOUT A NOTICE WAS VOID BECAUSE IT WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE CERTIFIED STANDING ORDERS. 6. THE COURT HELD THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO REINSTATEMENT BECAUSE THE TERMINATION OF HIS SERVICE WAS VOID.
Final Decision: THE COURT DISMISSED THE PETITION AND UPHELD THE AWARD OF THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL.
R.K.Choudhary, J.
1. The petitioner in this case is the Behar Journals Limited, Patna. Respondent No. 2, R. K. Mishra, was appointed on a salary of Rs. 125 per month as a probationer sub-editor by M.S.M. Sharma, the Editor of the "Searchlight", a daily paper published by the petitioner-company on probation for six months. A copy of the letter of appointment is annexure B to this petition. According to its terms, his service was terminable during the above period of six months without notice and without assigning any reason. There appears to have been some difference between the workmen of the petitioner-company and its management which ultimately led to the organization of the workmen into an Union known as the Behar Journals Limited Employees Union, Patna, through whom respondent No. 2 is represented.
This Union was registered in February, 1955. Ultimately, for reasons not necessary to be stated, the workmen went on strike from the 3rd of February to the 9th of February, 1956. Respondent No. 2 was a member of the action committee of the Union, and it is said that he took active part in that strike. On the 29th of February, 1956, however, he was discharged from service by the said Editor as he did not require his services from March 1, 1956 A dispute thereafter arose between the management of the petitioner-company and its workmen represented by the above Union in regard to certain matters including the discharge of respondent No. 2 with which alone we are concerned in this case.
The Governor of Bihar acting under Section 7 read with Sec.10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act XLV of 1947), constituted an Indus trial Tribunal of which Shri Ali Hasan was the sole member, and referred the said dispute to the Tri bunal for adjudication. The reference in regard to the matter in question in this case was whether the discharge of Shri R. K. Mishra was unjustified and if so whether he is entitled to reinstatement or any other relief.
2. There was some difference between the parties as to the date of appointment of Shri R. K, Mishra. According to the management, he was appointed on the 1st of September, 1955, whereas, according to the Union, he was verbally appointed on the 24th of June, 1955, but the letter of appointment was given to him on the 1st of September, 1955. The Tribunal agreed with the management and held that he was appointed on the 1st of September, "1955, and not on the 24th of June, 1955, as contended by the Union.
On the merits it held, that, according to the Certified Standing Orders of the petitioner-company, respondent No. 2 was to be on probation for a period of three months only even though under the terms of the appointment letter the period of probation was six months and that till before the strike there was no record of any bad work of the said respondent so as to prevent him from being made permanent. It also held that he was entitled to have been given opportunity to show cause before his services were terminated summarily and found that it was a glaring case of arbitrary discharge.
The Tribunal accordingly gave an award and ordered the reinstatement of respondent No. 2 with SO per cent of the wages etc. from the date of his discharge inasmuch as it was admitted by him that he had been earning something by working part time in some other press. Being, thus, aggrieved, the petitioner has presented this application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the quashing of the above award.
3. In support of the application the first point urged on behalf of the petitioner is that respondent No. 2, being a sub-editor, was not a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act and, as such, there was no dispute between the management and the workman with regard to the point in question, and the reference was void. The argument, in my opinion, is based on misconception of law. An Act called the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (Act XLV of
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
