Point of Law: To come within the ambit of "working journalist" as defined in the Act of 1955, the employee has to establish that his principal avocation is journalism.

JUDGMENT :

1. By the impugned award dated 24.01.2020, reference made to the labour court has been decided against the petitioner. In substance, the labour court has found that the petitioner is not a "working journalist" and does not come within the ambit of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1955').

2. Shri Man Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a journalist within the meaning of the Act of 1955. The labour court had earlier decided the issue in favour of the petitioner by order dated 02.01.2019 and hence could not reverse the aforesaid findings in favour of the petitioner. The findings of the labour court are perverse.

3. Per contra, Shri Mukund Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel submits that the order dated 02.01.2019 passed by the labour court was without receiving full evidence on behalf of the parties. The final order was passed upon due consideration of the evidence introduced by both the parties and the judgment cannot be faulted. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot adjudicate any disputed findings of fact, particularly, when no perversity in the award has been established.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. The following reference was made to the labour court:

A. Whether the workman is entitled to the benefits of Majithia Wage Board Award? if yes, the nature of relief which can be granted to the workman Sandeep Nagar?

6. The said reference was made under Section 17(2) of the Act of 1955 read with Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Benefits of the Majithia Wage Board Award could be granted to the petitioner only if he was a working journalist as contemplated in the Act of 1955.

7. Upon consideration of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidences in the record as well as the submissions on behalf of the parties, the labour court made these findings. The principal avocation of the petitioner is teaching and not journalism. The petitioner was a part time journalist. The petitioner does not come within the embrass of definition "working journalist" as contemplated in the Act of 1955.

8. Some of the pleadings and evidences which led the labour court to make the aforesaid findings shall now be discussed.

9. The petitioner claimed in his application before the labour court that he was engaged as a reporter w.e.f. 07.04.2011 with the respondent establishment. He claimed entitlement to wages and other benefits recommended by the Majithia Wage Board Award. The respondent employer in the written pleadings submitted before the labour court strenuously contested entitlements claimed by the petitioner and asserted that the principal avocation of the petitioner was teaching". He used to send stories and news from time to time as a hobby. Only a person whose principal avocation is a journalism is covered under the definition of "working journalist" defined under Section 2f of the Act of 1955.

10. The petitioner deposed before the labour court that he was appointed on 07.04.2011. Prior to his appointment the petitioner had submitted an application for appointment along with his educational testimonials. Upon an interview conducted by the employers, the petitioner was engaged as a full time reporter. An appointment letter was issued to him two and a half months after his appointment. He submitted a number of stories and reports and was paid lump sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month.

11. On behalf of the employers, one Pankaj Kumar Srivastava who was working as Regional H.R. Head deposed as E.W.-1. E.W.-1 in his testimony before the labour court stated that Sandeep Nagar (workman) had made an application to the respondent employer/establishment stating that he wanted to engage in journalism as a hobby and that his principal avocation was teaching. On the foot of the aforesaid application the petitioner was appointed in the respondent establishment.