Proofreaders are included in the definition of working journalists under Section 2(f) of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, and are therefore entitled to the benefits of Chapter II of the Act, including the statutory condition of service regarding working hours.

ORDER :

Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.—These two petitions seek the issue of writs of certiorari to call for the records of the industrial tribunal, Madras, and aside two awards passed by it in which each of these petitioners is interested. The management of the Hindu Madras, are the petitioners in W.P. No. 263 of 1957 while W.P. No. 385 of 1957 has been preferred by the management of the Express Newspapers (Private), Ltd. The common question that arises in both these petitions is as to whether proofreaders employed in their respective establishments are working journalists entitled to the benefits conferred on this class of employees by Chap. II and in particular by Section 6 of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (45 of 1955), to which I shall hereafter refer as the Act.

2. I shall set out a few facts to explain the dispute between the parties and the precise points arising for decision in these petitions.

3. Both the Hindu as well as the Express Newspapers, Ltd., have on their permanent staff the necessary number of "proofreaders." Under the conditions of service which prevailed before the disputes now referred to the industrial tribunal for adjudication (?) arose, these employees were required normally to work for eight hours day and six days in every week. In other words, they were required to render 48 hours' work in every week of seven days.

4. While things were in this state, the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Act 45 of 1955) was passed which received the assent of the President on 20 December 1955 when it came into force. Its preamble recited that it was enacted "to regulate certain conditions of service of working journalists and other persons employed in newspaper establishments." Chapter II of the Act laid down special provisions in relation to "working journalists." Section 3(1) with which this chapter opens enacted:

3.(1) The provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as in force for the time being, shall, subject to the modification specified in Sub-section (2), apply to, or in relation to, working journalists as they apply to, or in relation to, workmen within the meaning of that Act.

These petitions are concerned with the hours of work which may be required of "working journalists" and in relation to this Section 6 of the Act is the relevant provision. This section runs:

(1) Subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, no working journalist shall be required or allowed to work in any newspaper establishment for more than one hundred and forty-four hours during any period of four consecutive weeks, exclusive of the time for meals.

(2) Every working journalist shall be allowed during any period of seven consecutive days rest for a period of not less than twenty-four consecutive hours, the period between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. being included therein.

It would be seen that u/s 6(1) no working journalist may be required to work for more than 144 hours during any period of, four consecutive weeks. The conditions of service of proofreaders in the two establishments with which these petitions are concerned required them to work for 192 hours during periods of four consecutive weeks. If proofreaders were working journalists, there can be no controversy or dispute that the conditions of service which the statute prescribed had been violated by the establishments who are petitioners here. Their case however was that proofreaders were not working journalists within the meaning of the Act 45 of 1955.

5. The Madras Union of Journalists, a registered trade union, sponsored the cause of the proofreaders in the two establishments and claiming that proofreaders were working journalists required the petitioners to conform to the terms of Section 6(1). The managements however urged that proofreaders could not be treated as journalists within the meaning of the Act and on this ground denied to the union the relief which it claimed on behalf of t