Copy holders are also proof readers under Group IV of Scheme of wages.

Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.-

These are appeals under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Judgment of Veeraswami, J., in batch of Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the management of the Hindu for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the orders passed by the Labour Court, Madras under section 9 (2) of the Working Journalists (Fixation of Rates of Wages) Act XXIX of 1958 directing the payment of certain sums by the management to the third respondent in the several appeals. The latter are being employed as copyholders in the press. The management have prescribed a grades system of wages to them. Their work is associated with the correction of proofs in the preparation of the daily newspaper run by it. In preparing the daily, the matter taken up for publication whether it be in the form of manuscript or typed script goes through four stages of proof correction before it is finally incorporated in the final publication. The first or what is called the rough proof is checked up by the manuscript or typed script by two sets of persons acting together, namely the proof readers and the copyholders. The latter reads out the matter given for printing, while the proof reader follows the same with the printed proof in his hands. The proof reader who is acquainted with the symbols employed in proof correction, makes the corrections wherever necessary both with a view to bring it in conformity with the original and also to correct mistakes in printing. This dual agency for the correction of first proof, we are told is employed only in a few newspapers among whom the “Hindu” is one. That undoubtedly facilitates quicker despatch of work. The rough poof thus corrected goes to the press again for a second proof called the author's final. After the correction of that proof the third proof known as final galley emerges from the press. That again is corrected and the fourth proof called the page proof comes for the final correction. Except at the stage of the rough proof in the correction of which the copyholder does only the reading part of the comparison and correction in all the subsequent stages of the work the duties pertaining to correction of proof are given to the copyholder as well as the proof reader indiscriminately. In other words printed proofs at the stage of the author's final galley and page proofs are distributed for correction not merely to proof readers but to copyholders as well.

The respondents in these several appeals occupying the specified category as copyholders on the staff, claiming that they were proof readers within the class of persons so designated, in the Recommendations of the Wages Committee appointed under the Working Journalists (Fixation of Rates of Wages) Act, 1958and as such entitled to receive emoluments applied to the State Government for recovery of arrears of salary due to them on that basis, (after giving credit to the actual amounts received by them from the management). The Government in due course referred the applications for adjudication to the Labour Court at Madras. The management contested the applications stating that the copyholders could never be regarded as proof readers. This objection has been overruled by the Labour Court which computed the amounts due to the employees on the basis that they were proof readers and directed the management to pay the same to the respective persons. A certificate under section 9 (1) of the 1956 Act by the State Government followed.

The validity of the order of the Labour Court and of the certificate, was challenged in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution before Veeraswami, J. The learned Judge has upheld the decision of the Labour Court and hence these appeals.

The only question that arises for determination in these appeals is, whether the respondents fall within the category of proof readers for whom scales of pay and grades have been fixed by the Wage Committee appointed under the Working Journalists’ Act, 19