Law reports containing recent judicial decisions of superior courts constitute 'public news' under the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, thereby qualifying the publishers as 'newspaper establishments' subject to the Act's regulatory and welfare provisions.

ACT:

Working Journalists and other Newspapers Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (Act No. 45 of 1955)-Whether law reports-All India Reporter, Criminal Law Journal, Labour and Industrial Cases, Taxation Law Reports, Allahabad Law Journal, U.P. Law Tribune published by All India Reporter Ltd. are newspapers as defined-in-And whether employees of All India Reporter Limited engaged in production of publication of these law reports are entitled to benefits conferred upon employees of newspaper establishments by the above Act.

6. The question which arose for consideration in this case was whether the law reports, namely, All India Reporter, Criminal Law Journal, Labour and Industrial Cases, Taxation Law Reports, Allahabad Law Journal and U.P. Law Tribune, published by the respondent No. 1, All India Reporter Limited, were newspapers as defined in the Working Journalists and other Newspapers Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (’the Act’) and whether the employees of the 1st respondent engaged in the production or publication of the said law reports were entitled to the benefits conferred upon the employees of the newspaper establishments by the Act.

In exercise of the powers conferred by section 13AA and section 13DD of the Act, the Central Government constituted two Tribunals with Justice Palekar as Member of each of the two Tribunals to make recommendations in respect of fixing or revising wages of the working journalists as well as non-working journalists. Justice Palekar made his recommendations on 12.8.1980. In exercise of its powers under section 12 of the Act, the Central Government accepted a part of the recommendations and made an order thereon on 26.12.1980 and then accepted the remaining part of the recommendations and made another order thereon on 20.7.1981.

The 1st respondent had not been served with any individual notice by the Tribunal before it passed its award. The 1st respondent also had not sent a reply to the questionnaire issued by the Tribunal, nor had it given any evidence before the Tribunal in respect of the matters referred to therein.

The Deputy Labour Commissioner wrote to the 1st respondent asking it to file its written statements in the matter of non-implementation of the Palekar Award, as the orders of the Central Government made under section 12 of the Act were popularly called. The 1st respondent submitted its reply inter alia contending that it was not running a newspaper establishment and its publications were not newspapers and as such the Palekar Award was not applicable to it. The Deputy Labour Commissioner again wrote to the 1st respondent saying that the 1st respondent was liable to implement the order of the Central Government made on the recommendations of the Palekar Tribunal since the 1st respondent was a newspaper establishment. Upon receipt of this notice, the 1st respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court, questioning the validity of the notice served on it by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, calling upon it to implement the orders of the Central Government-The Palekar Award. The High Court accepted the plea of the 1st respondent and declared that the law reports were not newspapers within the meaning of section 2(b) of the Act and that the demand made by the Deputy Labour Commissioner for compliance with the orders made by the Central Government on the basis of the recommendations of Justice Palekar was unsustainable. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the appellants moved this Court for relief by special leave. Allowing the appeal, the Court,

HEADNOTE:

HELD: The Court was concerned with the narrow question whether the six law reports aforementioned being published by the 1st respondent were newspapers within the meaning of the Act and whether the employees engaged in their production or distribution wer