The court established that the provision denying gratuity to working journalists is a reasonable classification and not violative of Article 14, emphasizing the unique position and ethical standards of working journalists.

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the company”) is the appellant before us. They are aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single judge holding that last part of section 5(1)(a)(i) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Condition of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955 (for short “Working Journalists Act”) be read down and disciplinary action mentioned in the sub-section be considered to mean only disciplinary action for riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on the part of the employee or any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude during the course of his employment.

2. The first respondent, an Assistant Editor of the Company, was charge sheeted for misconduct of raising false allegations against the Managing Director of the company and of using discourteous language and on various other misconducts. Enquiry was conducted and accepting the enquiry report, the first respondent was dismissed from service on 20.6.1988. An industrial dispute was raised and the Industrial Tribunal upheld the order of dismissal and award was passed. First respondent challenged the award in O.P.No.6920 of 1990 which was dismissed against which he filed W.A.No. 1694 of 1994 and the same was also dismissed. Special Leave Petition filed by the first respondent before the Supreme Court was also dismissed.

3. Appellant company did not disburse the gratuity claimed by the respondent-journalist since under Section 5 (1)(a)(i) of the Working Journalist Act, if service of the working journalist was terminated for misconduct he is not entitled to get gratuity. Working journalist is also not entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972. First respondent therefore approached this court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Section 5 (1)(a)(i) of the Working Journalist Act, especially last paragraph of the section, contending that the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He also sought for a declaration that the provision is discriminatory, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Company stating that the first respondent is governed by Section 5 of the Working Journalist Act and as per the said provision if the service of the employee has been terminated by way of disciplinary action he is not entitled to gratuity. Eligibility factor, computation of gratuity and various other aspects are different from the corresponding factors provided in the Gratuity Act, 1972 and therefore it was contended that the special provision in the Working Journalists Act is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

5. Learned single judge however allowed the writ petition and the judgment is reported in ILR 2002 (3) Kerala 300 (Rajan v. Union of India). Learned single judge held that the provision denying gratuity to the working journalist in the last part of Section 5 (1)(a)(i) of the Working Journalist Act due to termination of service by way of disciplinary proceedings is arbitrary and discriminatory. However, instead of declaring the section as invalid the learned judge held that that part of Section 5 (1)(a)(i) should be read down to mean only disciplinary action for riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part or any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of employment.

6. Counsel appearing for the Company Sri U.K. Ramakrishnan submitted that learned single judge has committed an error in reading down the provision so as to be in conformity with the provisions of the payment of Gratuity Act. Counsel referred to section 16 of the Working Journalist Act and submitted that the provisions of that Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent there under contained in any other law or in the terms of any award, agreem