Back
High Court Of Delhi
L.D.JAIN - Appellant
Versus
GENERAL MANAGER GOVT.OF INDIA PRESS, NEW DELHI - Respondent
Civil 181D of 1963
Decided On : 03/16/1966
WORKING JOURNALISTS ACT - NEWSPAPER - PROOF-READERS - HOURS OF WORK - SAVING CLAUSE - CONSTITUTIONALITY - ARTICLE 14 - DISCRIMINATION - Held, the Gazette of India is a newspaper within the meaning of section 2 (b) of the Act and the petitioners, who are proof-readers, are included in the definition of the "working journalist" in section 2 (f) and, therefore, they would be entitled to the benefit of section 6 of the Act which has fixed the maximum hours of work for the working journalist. The saving provision in section 19-B does not apply to the petitioners and if it is held to be applicable, it would be unconstitutional violative of Article 14. The discrimination being practised in as much as the petitioners are being made to work for a greater number of hours than the proof-readers in the various Ministries and Departments to whom the ruler specified in section 19-B of the Act are applicable.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, proof-readers employed by the Government of India Press, New Delhi, filed a petition seeking to enforce the provisions of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (the Act) and the rules framed thereunder, alleging that they were being denied the benefits in the matter of hours of work for which provision is made in the Act and the rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Gazette of India is a newspaper within the meaning of section 2 (b) of the Act and the petitioners, who are proof-readers, are included in the definition of the "working journalist" in section 2 (f) and, therefore, they would be entitled to the benefit of section 6 of the Act which has fixed the maximum hours of work for the working journalist. The court further held that the saving provision in section 19-B does not apply to the petitioners and if it is held to be applicable, it would be unconstitutional violative of Article 14.
Issues: 1. Whether the Gazette of India is a newspaper within the meaning of section 2 (b) of the Act? 2. Whether the petitioners, who are proof-readers, are included in the definition of the "working journalist" in section 2 (f) of the Act? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of section 6 of the Act which has fixed the maximum hours of work for the working journalist? 4. Whether the saving provision in section 19-B applies to the petitioners? 5. Whether the saving provision in section 19-B is unconstitutional violative of Article 14 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Gazette of India is a newspaper within the meaning of section 2 (b) of the Act because it is a printed periodical work containing public news and is sold at a scheduled price to the public. 2. The court held that the petitioners, who are proof-readers, are included in the definition of the "working journalist" in section 2 (f) of the Act because their principal avocation is that of a journalist and they are employed as such in, or in relation to, a newspaper establishment. 3. The court held that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of section 6 of the Act which has fixed the maximum hours of work for the working journalist because they are working journalists employed in a newspaper establishment. 4. The court held that the saving provision in section 19-B does not apply to the petitioners because they are not employees of the Government to whom the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules, Civil Services, (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules Revised Leave Rules, Civil Services, Rules. Revised Leave Rules Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal Rules or the Indian Railway Establishment Code or any other rules or regulations that may be notified in this behalf by the Central Government in the Official Gazette, apply. 5. The court held that the saving provision in section 19-B is unconstitutional violative of Article 14 of the Constitution because it discriminates between the petitioners and other working journalists who are similarly situated.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to implement the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder in respect of the petitioners.
( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose of Civil writs Nos. 181-D of 1963, 333. D to 348-D and 349-D to 352-D of 1963.
( 2 ) THE petitioners are employee in the Government of India Press, New Delhi, as proof-readers. The main point raised in their petitioners in that although they are governed by the Working Journalists (conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act), they are being denied the benefits in the matter of hours of work for which provision is made in the Act and in the rules framed thereunder. It is alleged that as far India Press back as 1961 the workers in the Reading Branch of the Government of formed an association called the Reading Staff Association and started making representations to the respondents in respect of their demands, one of which was that the provisions of the Act and rules framed thereunder should be applied to the reading staff of the Press (letter dated (12th Agust, 1961) Annexure "q". A statement of claims was also submitted to the Labour Commissioner and Conciliation officer, Government of India. Certain correspondence took place between the. Conciliation officer and the Association and on 12th February 1962 the said officer discussed the matter with the representatives of the Association. Further correspondence took place as the Conciliation officer said that the case was under consideration. He intimated by his letter dated 22nd August, 1962 that the Government had decided that the Gazette of India was not a newspaper within the meaning of the Act, and therefore, the dispute raised by the Association had no basis. The association, however, pursued the matter but finally a letter was written on 20th December 1962 by the Under Secretary to the Government of India saying that the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the reading staff of the press and reference in this connection was made to section 19-B which was inserted by Section 8 of the Working Journalists (Amendment) Act, 1962. Thereafter the present petitions were filed and the prayer, as originally made in the petitions, was that the respondents be restrained from requiring the petitioners to work -.
" (A) for more than 144 hours during any period of four consecutive weeks, exclusive of the time for meals; (b) for more than 6 hours per day in the case of a day shift or for more than 5 hours per day in the case of alight- shift, exclusive of the time for meals". There was a general prayer that other necessary directions or orders be issued so as to-give complete relief to the petitioners.
( 3 ) IN the return, which consists of the affidavit of Shri R. F. Isar, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Works, Housing and Rehablitation, it was stated inter alia that the Gazette of India was an official weekly publication and that the other publications mentioned by the petitoners, namely. Fortnightly News Digest and Atomic News Digest had since been stopped. It was further stated that the petitioners were Government employees to whom the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules, Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, Revised Leave Rules, Civil Service Regualtions applied and in view of the definition of a working journalist continne in section 2 (f) of the Act and-the saving clause embodied in section 19-B, the petitioners could not claim any right under the Act. It was, however, admitted in paragraph 7 that the petitioners were "workers" in accordance with the definition given under the Factories Act, 1948 and their hours of work were regulated by the provisions contained in that Act under which they were reqiuired to work for 48 hours in a week. As against this, however, they were working for 44 hours a week at the most during the day- shift and 38 hours during the nightshift.
( 4 ) THE petitioners filed supplementary affidavit dated 10th February 1964 in which it was said inter alia that the poof-readers
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
