NEWSPAPER PUBLISHER PRIVATE LTD Vs. THEIR WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This write petition pertains to the award made by the labour court at Hubli, in Reference (I.D.) (L.C.H.) No. 37 of 1961 on its file and published in the Mysore Gazette of 5 July, 1962. The workmen of Newspaper Publisher (Private), Ltd. represented by the S. K. Press Workers' Union, Maidan Road, Mangalore, was the first party in that reference; the present petitioner was the second party. For the purpose of the present writ petition, we are concerned only with two questions out of those covered by the award. The first is the order of the labour court that one Jayananda Shetty who had been discharged by the petitioner on 26 December, 1960 should be reinstated; the second is the order of the labour court requiring the payment of an additional bonus equivalent to half-month's basic wages, to the first party workmen. These are the two main questions to which Sri T. Krishna Rao, the learned advocate for the petitioner, has confined himself and has contended that the award in so far as it relates to these two matters, is liable to be quashed.

(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to the above two questions, briefly stated, are as follows :- One Jayananda Shetty has been appointed on 15 February, 1960, as an attender by Baburaya Kini, the manager of the petitioner-concern. His duties consisted of sweeping the floor, cleaning the machine and carrying out errands. Accordingly to the finding of the labour court, Jayananda Shetty was a child above 14 years of ago when he was so appointed. On 3 November, 1960, the petitioner asked Jayananda Shetty to produce a school certificate or a certificate from the District Medical Officer, as proof of his age that he was an adult. On 13 November, 1960, Jayananda Shetty produced a medical certificate (Ex. M. 2) which showed that his age was 15 years. Thereupon, the petitioner discharged Jayananda Shetty, Exhibit M. 3, the order of discharge, was as follows :-

(3.) The contention of the management before the labour court was that Jayananda Shetty was not a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that after the management came to know from the medical certificate that he was not an adult but a child, Jayananda Shetty was discharged and that, therefore, he was not entitled to any compensation or reinstatement. These contentions were covered by issues (1) to (3) framed by the labour court, which are as follows :