Working Journalists Not 'Employees' Under MRTU & PULP Act: Bombay High Court Division Bench Clarifies - 2024-03-04

Bombay High Court Rules Working Journalists Not Covered Under MRTU & PULP Act

Mumbai: In a significant ruling clarifying the legal status of working journalists, the Bombay High Court's Division Bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and Sandeep V. Marne has held that working journalists are not included in the definition of "employee" under Section 3(5) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). Consequently, complaints of unfair labour practice filed by working journalists under this Act are not maintainable.

The judgment, pronounced on 29 February 2024 (reserved on 4 September 2023), resolves a reference made by a Single Judge of the court, which sought to address conflicting views on whether working journalists could maintain complaints before the Industrial Court under the MRTU & PULP Act.

The issue arose from several petitions, including cross-petitions involving Indrakumar Jain , a working journalist, and newspaper establishment Dainik Bhaskar , and a petition concerning Devendra Pratap Singh , another working journalist, against Pioneer Book Co. Pvt. Ltd. In these cases, objections were raised regarding the maintainability of complaints filed under the MRTU & PULP Act, arguing that working journalists do not fall within the Act's definition of 'employee'.

The Single Judge had noted conflicting decisions by other Single Judges of the court, particularly highlighting the views in Bennett Coleman Co. Ltd. v/s. Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha (where a single judge initially held complaints maintainable) and Shashikaran R. Shrivastava V/s. Bennett Coleman & Co. (where a single judge held complaints not maintainable). The reference was made to settle this perceived conflict and the importance of the question.

Arguments presented by the journalists contended that the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (Working Journalists Act), by incorporating provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act), creates a legal fiction treating working journalists as 'workmen' under the ID Act. Since the MRTU & PULP Act's definition of 'employee' includes 'workman' as defined in the ID Act, this legal fiction should extend to the MRTU & PULP Act, allowing working journalists to be considered employees under the state Act. They argued for a beneficial interpretation, emphasizing that the MRTU & PULP Act's amendments to the ID Act, conferring rights like collective bargaining through recognised unions, should also apply to working journalists.

Newspaper establishments, on the other hand, argued that the Working Journalists Act is a comprehensive code establishing a special status for working journalists. They contended that the legal fiction under Section 3 of the Working Journalists Act is limited solely to making the provisions of the ID Act applicable for dispute resolution and does not alter the fundamental status of working journalists to make them workmen for all purposes, including under the MRTU & PULP Act. They pointed out that the Maharashtra Legislature specifically included sales promotion employees in the definition of 'employee' under the MRTU & PULP Act but did not do so for working journalists, indicating legislative intent to exclude them.

The Division Bench, after reviewing the statutory framework and judicial precedents, including Supreme Court decisions on the Working Journalists Act and the limited nature of legal fictions, found that no real conflict existed between the Single Judge decisions warranting the reference. The Court noted that the earlier decision in Bennett Coleman-1 , which supported maintainability, had been set aside by an Appeal Bench, leaving the decision in Shashikaran R. Shrivastava , which held otherwise, as the prevailing and binding view (further supported by the Supreme Court's dismissal of the SLP and review petition against it).

The Court emphasized that the Working Journalists Act confers a special status on working journalists, distinct from other newspaper employees who might qualify as 'workmen' under the ID Act based on the nature of their work.

The judgment stated: "The working journalists are thus a group by themselves and could be classified as such apart from the other employees of newspaper establishments... They could be singled out thus for preferential treatment against the other employees of newspaper establishments." (Referring to Express Newspapers (Pvt.) Ltd. )

And critically: "...the Constitution Bench observed that the emphasis was not on the working journalists being workmen within the ID Act but to indicate that Section 3(1) of the Working Journalist Act only applied provisions of the ID Act to the working journalists for all purposes and the working journalists were for that purpose workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, the emphasis was not on altering the status but on making the provisions of the ID Act applicable to working journalists."

The Bench concluded that the legal fiction equating working journalists to workmen is limited to the application of the ID Act's dispute resolution machinery. It does not extend to the MRTU & PULP Act, which is a separate enactment with a specific definition of 'employee'. Extending the fiction would contradict the clear legislative intent and the special status accorded to working journalists, potentially leading to an anomalous situation where they seek benefits under the MRTU & PULP Act while retaining exclusive privileges under the Working Journalists Act.

The Court observed: "...shorn of technicalities, working journalists constitute a distinct class with unique privileges and protections in their employment. This recognition of special status, distinct from other workmen, has been upheld... The framework provided by the Working Journalists Act and Rules under it, along with the recourse offered to journalists under the Industrial Disputes Act, forms a specific arrangement. While the Working Journalists Act establishes a legal fiction equating working journalists with workmen, this fiction is limited. The status of working journalists remains distinct from that of regular workmen due to the retention of their special privileges."

Affirming the view in Shashikaran Shrivastava , the bench answered the reference, holding that working journalists are not included in the definition of "employee" under Section 3(5) of the MRTU & PULP Act, and thus their complaints under that Act are not maintainable.

The Writ Petitions are now to be placed before the learned Single Judge for passing appropriate orders in light of this clarification. The ruling provides much-needed clarity on the jurisdictional avenue available to working journalists seeking to address grievances related to unfair labour practices.