Avocation Working Journalists Industrial Disputes Act, 1955, Section 2(b), & Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, Section 2(f) The High Court thought that the dictionary meaning of the word "avocation" which showed that it meant "a distraction or diversion from one's regular employment", could be adopted in the context of S. 2(b). In support of this view, the High Court has cited a passage from Fowler in Modern English Usage, Fowler says : "Avocation originally a calling away, an interruption, a distraction, was for some time commonly used as a synonym for vocation or calling, with which it is properly in antithesis. This misuse is now less common, and the word is generally used in the plural, a person's avocations being the things he devotes time to, his pursuits or engagements in general, the affairs he has to see to; his vocation as such neither excluded from, nor necessarily included, in his avocation." Applying this dictionary meaning of the word "avocation" the High Court has held that even if the respondent has to satisfy the first condition prescribed by the first part of S. 2(b), it can be held that he satisfied the said test, because the work of a correspondent in his case can be safely said to be his principal avocation in the sense of distraction or diversion from his regular employment. In our opinion, in applying mechanically the dictionary meaning of the word "avocation" without due regard to the context of S. 2(b) the High Court has adopted a somewhat pedantic approach. One has merely to read the definition to realize the word "avocation" used in S. 2(b) cannot possibly mean a distraction or diversion from one's regular employment. On the contrary, it plainly means one's vocation, calling or profession. The plain idea underlying S. 2(b) is that if a person is doing the work, say of a correspondent, and at the same time is pursuing some other calling or profession, say that of a lawyer, it is only where his calling as a journalist can be said to be his principal calling that the status of a working journalist can be assigned to him. That being the plain object of S. 2(b),it would, we think, be, on the whole, inappropriate to adopt the dictionary or the etymological meaning of the word "avocation" in construing S. 2(b). We ought to add that Mr. Menon who appeared for the respondent did not attempt to support the approach adopted by the High Court in dealing with this point, Therefore, when a question arises as to whether a journalist can be said to be working journalist, it has to be shown that journalism of whatever kind contemplated by S. 2(b) is the principal avocation of the person claiming the status of a working journalist and that naturally would involve an enquiry as to the gains made by him by pursuing the career of a journalist as compared with the gains made by him by the pursuit of other callings or professions. It is obvious that this test will be merely academic and of no significance in the case of full time journalists, because in such cases the obvious presumption would be that their full time employment is their principal avocation and no question of comparing their income from journalism with income from other sources can arise. In fact the status of such full time journalists as working journalists will not be affected even if in some cases the income received by them from such employment may be found to be less than, say, for instance, the income from their ancestral property. This test assumes significance and importance only in the case of journalists who are employed on part time basis. (Express Newspapers v. Somayjulu, AIR 1964 SC 279 (283,284)