The provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act apply to working journalists as they apply to workmen, and a dispute involving a working journalist can be referred to an Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the Management against the Award of -the Industrial Tribunal dated 28th January, 1973, made on a Reference dated December 13, 1971, by which the Tribunal has decided the preliminary issues against the petitioner and has set down the dispute for decision on merits.

( 2 ) THE material facts of the case are that respondent No. 3, Mr. B. D. Mathur, joined employment of the petitioner as Sub Editor in 19510 and was in May, 1965 made a special representative He was admittedly a working journalist within the meaning of the terms in Section 2 (f) of the Working Journalists Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1956 (which is hereinafter referred to as the Act ). On his assignment as a special representative, the respondent claimed certain perquisities and benefits, which were denied to him. This raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the Lt. Governor, Delhi by his order dated December 13, !971 for adjudicatioa to the Industrial Tribunal. The terms of reference were as follows:

1. (a) Did Shri Mathur become entitled to the convenated grade when he was appointed as Chief Sub-Editor and cotinued in the said grade thereafter and is the management justified in denying his grade to him ?

(B) What relief if any, is Shri Mathur entitled to and with effect from which date, and what directions are necessary in this behalf?

2. Whether the management in justified in transferring Shri Mathur from Lucknow to Delhi without his consent and what relief, if any, is he entitled to ?

3. Whether the management in justified in denying Shri Mathur his per-quisities and benefits during his leave period in 1969, and what relief, if any is he entitled to ?

4. What are the terms and conditions of service applicable to Shri Mathur on his transfer to Delhi and what directions are necessary in this behalf ?when the dispute proeecded for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal, the anegentent (petitioner) herein raised number of objections inter alia that Mr. Mathur was not a workman within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, ths reference was without jurisdiction, and that the trade union hed net espoused his cause, so the reference was not competent. On the pleadings of the parlies, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

1. Whether Shri Mathur is a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act ?

2. Whether the Delhi Union of Journalists has no locus standi to espouse the cause of Shri Mathur?

3. Whether the said Union has espoused the cause of Shri Mathur?

4. Whether the reference is not in acc. Jrdance with the Working Journalists Act ?

5. Whether the dispute regarding wages claimed in the reference is not maintainable under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?the Tribunal by the impugned order recorded the findings on the aforesaid issues in favour of the workman and against the Management/ petitioner. Aggrieved by the said findings the petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing them A counter affidavit on behalf of the workman has been filed. The other two respondents in the writ petition are Lt. Governor, who made the reference, and the Industrial Tribunal, who made the award and naturally they are not interested in contesting the writ petition and so have not entered appearance. Mr. G. B. Pai, Advocate, appearing to support the writ petition, has raised the following contentions;

(1) Respondent No. 3 is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and as such the reference under the Industrial Disputes Act was without jurisdiction and the finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 1 is contrary to law

(2) The Working Journalists Act is a comprehensive statutory provision on the subject and so instrumentality of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be used to give relief to the respondent, by way of additional remedy and the reference is without jurisdiction

(3) The reference postulates the dispute of indivi