S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. The appellant hereafter called “HT Ltd.” appeals against a judgment of the learned Single Judge which upheld the Award of the Labour Court that found, in a reference, that the termination of one (late) Mr. Arun Kumar’s services was illegal.

Brief Facts

2. Late Mr. Arun Kumar, who is represented in this appeal by his legal heirs, was not a workman as ordinarily understood in labour law and was employed as a working journalist within the meaning of the Working Journalists & Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (“The Working Journalists Act”). Under Section 3 of The Working Journalists Act, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 apply to, or in relation to, working journalists as they apply to, or in relation to, workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since Late Mr. Arun Kumar (hereafter referred to as the “workman”) was employed as a working journalist with HT Ltd., the dispute around termination of his services was referred to the Labour Court.

3. The workman was employed by HT Ltd. as an employee with effect from 01.12.1973. Almost fifteen years into his employme