Raj Kishore Prasad, J.

1. This case involves the interpretation of Sec.18(1) of The Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, (Act 45 of 1955), hereinafter referred to as "the Act".

2. The sole question for determination is, Does the word "employer" in Section 18(1) of the Act include the manager?

3. The circumstances leading up to the instant case are these:

This Bihar Journals Limited, Patna, is a newspaper establishment, registered as a company under the Indian Companies Act, and, it carries on the business of conducting and publishing two daily newspapers from Patna -- "The Searchlight" in English, and, "The Pradip" in Hindi. The petitioner is its Manager, and as such, supervises and directs the work of his fellow employees including that of the proof-readers, who are employed under the Bihar Journals Ltd.

4. The opposite party is the General Secretary of the Bihar Working Journalists Union, a registered Trade Union of the Working Journalists in the State of Bihar, having is office at Patna.

5. The opposite party on 9-6-1956 filed a complaint under Sec.18(1) of the Act before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patna Sadar, against the petitioner, for contravention of the provisions of Sec. 6 of the Act, alleging that the proof-readers, employed under the Bihar Journals Limited have been made to work for about 192 hours per four consecutive weeks, commencing from 27-3-1956, in contravention of the mandatory provisions of Sec. 6(1) of the Act, which provide a maximum of 144 hours of work during any period of four consecutive weeks, exclusive of the time for meals. It was further alleged that the petitioner, as manager and chief executive officer of the newspaper establishment, was an "employer" within the meaning of the Act and, therefore, he was criminally liable for breach of Sec. 6(1) of the Act.

6. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, on 2-8-1957. summoned the petitioner, under Sec.18(1) of the Act, and, sent the case for disposal to Mr. S. N. Sinha, Munsif Magistrate, First Class, Patna, where the matter is now pending.

7. The petitioner has, therefore, moved this Court in revision and asked for quashing the criminal proceeding against him.

8. The argument presented by Mr. A.N. Sahay, in support of the rule, was that the petitioner, being the Manager of the Bihar Journals Ltd., was also one of its employees, and, therefore, he could not be considered either an "employer", or, a person included within the word "employer", within the meaning of Section 18(1) of the Act, and, consequently, he way not liable under Sec.18(1) of the Act. He further contended that simply because the petitioner held the post of the Manager, and, had in that capacity the power of superintendence and control over the proof-readers, he cannot be considered to be an employer vis-a-vis the proof-readers even, because both the petitioner and the proofreaders were co-employees or fellow-workers under the same master, or employer, namely, the Bihar Journals Ltd., and, as such, he cannot be legally prosecuted under Sec.18(1) of the Act for the act or omission of his employer, the Bihar Journals Ltd., in that, there was no vicarious liability on the petitioner for the same.

9. In reply it was argued by Mr. Padmanand Jha, who opposed the rule, that the word "employer" includes the Manager also, and, therefore, the petitioner being admittedly the manager of the Bihar Journals Ltd., and having control and superintendence over the proof-readers, was an "employer" within the meaning of Sec.18(1) of the Act, and, as such he was liable under it.

10. It would be useful at this stage to read Sec.2 (c), (d), (f) and (g); Section 6 (1) and Sec.18 (1) of the Act, which are in these terms:-

"2. Definitions. -- In this Act, unless the contest otherwise requires, X X X X X

(c) "newspaper employee" means any working journalist, and includes any other person employed to do any work in, or in relation to, any newspaper estab