IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN &

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.

TH MONDAY, THE 19 DAY OF MAY 2025 / 29TH VAISAKHA, 1947 WA NO. 262 OF 2025 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.01.2025 IN WP(C) NO.11745 OF

2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

THE MATHRUBHUMI PRINTING AND PUBLISHING COMPANY LTD MATHRUBHOOMI BUILDING, K.P. KESHAVA MENON ROAD, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, M.V. SHREYAMS KUMAR, PIN - 673001 BY ADVS.

P.RAMAKRISHNAN ASHOK MENON C.ANIL KUMAR GOKUL KRISHNA MANOJKUMAR G.

PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN (P-212)

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

1 THE GENERAL SECRETARY, KERALA UNION OF WORKING JOURNALISTS, KESARI BUILDING, PULIMOOD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695001.

–

2 INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE, CIVIL STATION, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN 673020.

–

OTHER PRESENT:

SRI. T. K. VIPINDAS, SR. GP THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.02.2025, THE COURT ON 19.05.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

Muralee Krishna, J.

This writ appeal is filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.11745 of 2024. The writ petition was filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs: “a) A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing and setting aside Exhibit P-7.

b) Hold that ID No. 01/2016 is not maintainable as the employee concerned is not a workman as defined in Section 2(s) of the I.D.Act 1947.”

2. The appellant is a Newspaper establishment represented by its Managing Director. One Mr.C.Narayanan (for convenience of reference hereinafter referred as ‘delinquent’) was a Chief Sub Editor of one of the Units of the appellant Newspaper. The appellant initiated disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent on the allegation that he abused the News Editor. As per the order dated 05.06.2015, the delinquent was discharged from service followed by a domestic enquiry. The 1^st respondent- Trade Union raised an industrial dispute against the punishment imposed on the delinquent and the Government referred the issue to the Industrial Tribunal as per order dated 15.03.2016. Before the Industrial Tribunal, the 1^st respondent filed Ext.P1 claim statement and the appellant filed Ext.P2 counter statement. 3. From the side of the appellant, MW1 was examined and Exts.M1 to M3 were marked before the Industrial Tribunal. The respondent therein did not examine any witness or produce any documentary evidence. After analysing the evidence on record, and hearing the parties, the tribunal, as per Ext.P7 preliminary order dated 06.03.2024 held that the delinquent is a workman as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act and the enquiry conducted was in violation of principles of natural justice. The aggrieved appellant filed W.P.(C)No.11745 of 2024 before this court and as per the impugned judgment dated 24.01.2025, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition concurring with the finding of the Industrial Tribunal. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed this writ appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that as per Ext.P5-Manual of Procedures for the Editorial Department, a Chief Sub Editor, or Content Chief means a person who takes charge of a shift at the newsdesk, allocates and supervises the work of one or more Sub Editors and is generally responsible for the determination of news space and the general display of news in the news paper or in a particular edition or part of it. By relying on Rules 3 and 4 of Ext.P5 the learned counsel argued that the delinquent was mainly doing supervisory duties and hence will fall under the exclusionary clause of the definition of workmen under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that the decision of the Apex Court in