The principal avocation of journalism and specific employment status are crucial in determining entitlement to relief under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees Act, 1955.

Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J.

The challenge, in the present writ petition, is to the order dated 24.10.2013 (Annexure P5), whereby the respondent-The Tribune Trust discontinued the arrangement of Stringer (Part-time Journalist) with the petitioner and to the subsequent award dated 31.1.2014 (Annexure P11) whereby the Labour Court, Rohtak declined the reference against the petitioner on the ground that he was already working in the Model School at Rohtak as a Teacher and thus, he was not appointed as such on regular basis. Perusal of the paper-book would go on to show that the claim of the petitioner was that he was initially appointed as a Stringer on contract basis on 30.9.1996 (Annexure P1) to supply-news with special emphasis on education and university from Rohtak. His remuneration was increased from Rs. 500 to Rs. 2,000 vide letter dated 13.3.1999 (Annexure P3) and thereafter to Rs. 5,000 w.e.f. 1.11.2000. His services were terminated w.e.f. 10.11.2003 vide letter dated 24.10.2003 (Annexure P5) and it was alleged that there was violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (In short "the Act") as the work was of regular nature and is still carrying on. Accordingly, the plea taken was that there was violation of the mandatory provisions of Sections 25F, 25G, 25H, 25T & 25U of the Act and unfair labour practice was being practiced. Reference was also made to the appointments made thereafter for two persons.

2. The defence of the Tribune Trust was that he was not a workman and, therefore, the provisions of the Act were not applicable. The workman has been appointed as a Stringer to collect news on part-time basis vide letter dated 30.9.1996, since he was already a regular employee of a Model School at Rohtak. He was free to undertake any other employment by way of service or self-employment since the contract with the Tribune Trust was for part time working only and there was no relationship of workman and the Management inter se as he had been rendering his services while working as a Teacher in the Model School at Rohtak and was not a workman.

3. Replication was filed by the petitioner controverting the allegations and reiterating the stand earlier taken to submit that even the Stringers are very much covered under the definition of workman.

4. The Labour Court, taking into account the statement of the workman and W.W. 2 Anup Singh Saini along with the statement of M.W. 1 Sunil Mittal, Deputy Manager, came to a conclusion that since the workman had been working in a Model School at Rohtak as a Teacher and was still working there and that only a contractual appointment was with the respondent-Management on a part-time basis, he could not be entitled for any relief.

5. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even part time employment is covered under Section 2(f) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (In short "1955 Act") and, therefore, the Labour Court was in error in denying the relief. The argument is very attractive at first blush but perusal of said section would go on to show that the working journalist is a person whose principal avocation is that of journalist. Section 2(f) of the above said Act reads as under:--

(f) "working journalist" means a person whose principal avocation is that of a journalist and who is employed as such, either whole-time or part-time, in, or in relation to, one or more 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, function mainly of a managerial nature."

6. In the present case