Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
B.L. Hansaria, A.K. Padhi, JJ.
PRATAP CHANDRA MOHANTY - APPELLANT
Versus
GENERAL MANAGER, UNITED NEWS OF INDIA AND ANOTHER - RESPONDENT
O.J.C. No.1899 of 1987
Decided On : 08-08-1991
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - APPLICABILITY TO NEWSPAPER EMPLOYEES - WORKING JOURNALISTS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES - DISTINCTION - PROVISIONS OF WORKING JOURNALISTS ACT - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a part-time correspondent for a news agency, was terminated from his service. He raised an industrial dispute, claiming that the termination amounted to retrenchment without complying with the requirements of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court held that the reference was not maintainable as the petitioner was not a working journalist and therefore not a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act would apply to newspaper employees other than working journalists if they are 'workmen' within the meaning of the Act. The Court noted that Section 3(1) of the Working Journalists Act, which makes the Industrial Disputes Act applicable to working journalists, cannot be interpreted to mean that the Act would not apply to other newspaper employees. The Court also held that the provisions of Sections 14 and 15 of the Working Journalists Act, which make the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 applicable to newspaper establishments, do not mean that newspaper employees are deprived of the benefits of other Acts.
Issues: Whether the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 apply to newspaper employees other than working journalists.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act would apply to newspaper employees other than working journalists if they are 'workmen' within the meaning of the Act. The Court noted that Section 3(1) of the Working Journalists Act, which makes the Industrial Disputes Act applicable to working journalists, cannot be interpreted to mean that the Act would not apply to other newspaper employees. The Court also held that the provisions of Sections 14 and 15 of the Working Journalists Act, which make the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 applicable to newspaper establishments, do not mean that newspaper employees are deprived of the benefits of other Acts.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the impugned award and remitted the matter back to the Labour Court for fresh disposal in the light of the observations made above.
JUDGMENT :
B.L. Hansaria, C.J. - The significant question to be decided in this writ petition is whether the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have application to newspaper employees other than working journalists. This question has arisen on these facts. The petitioner was initially appointed as a stringer at Puri by opp. party No. 1, General Manager, United News of India, on a consolidated honorarium of Rs, 40/-per month. This was in. 1973. After completion of the probationary period, he was confirmed in service. Thereafter his name was included in the mailing list as District Correspondent. Having been treated as a Correspondent/his ''honorarium was raised to Rs. 75/- per month. He continued to discharge this function. ln the meantime, Palekar Tribunal was constituted under the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the. "Working Journalists Act") to fix wages in respect of working journalists. The Tribunal gave its award on 12-8-1980. The case of the petitioner is that on the basis of the said award he became entitled to higher wages and accordingly, he sent representations to his employer who did not respond. Suddenly/by a letter dated 25-8-1983, the service of the petitioner was terminated with effect from 15-9-1983:
2. An industrial dispute was raised relating to the termination of the petitioner's service on the ground that the same amounted to retrenchment but was ordered without complying with the requirements of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The dispute was referred for adjudication by the Labour Court. A preliminary objection was raised relating to main- tainability of the reference on the ground that the petitioner was not a working journalist and as such not a 'workman' as defined by Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, The learned Labour Court has held that the reference is not maintainable and has answered' the reference accordingly. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.
3. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the petitioner was not regarded as a working journalist as he was a part-time correspondent, because of which it was held that the same was not his principal avocation. It was then opined that as the petitioner was not a working journalist, he could not be regarded as a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act.
4. In assailing the view taken by the Labour Court, Shri Dhal con- tends that to be a working journalist, it is not necessary that the principal avocation of a correspondent must be that of a journalist. To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel, we have to know the definition of "working journalist" given in Section 2(f) of the Working journalists Act, which reads as below :
"2. Definitions-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, (a) to (e)
XX XX XX XX
(f) "working journalist" means a person whose principal avocation is that of a journalist and who is employed as such in,or in relation to, any newspaper establishment and includes an editor, a leader- writer, news-editor, sub-editor, feature-writer, copy-tester, reporter correspondent, cartoonist, news-photographer and proof- reader but does not include any such person who
(i) is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or
(ii) being employed in a supervisory capacity, performs, either by the nature of the duties attached to his office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature;"
5. By referring to the aforesaid definition, it is contended that as mention about 'correspondent' has been made in the inclusive part of the definition, the first part would not be required to be satisfied qua him. The Labour Court, however took the contrary view placing reliance on The Management of Express Newspapers Ltd. Vs. B. Somayajulu and Others, A reading of this decision would no doubt support the view taken by the Labour Court. According to this d
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
