NATIONAL NEWSPAPERS TAINADU Vs. JAYATHIRTHA RAO K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are asked in this civil petition by the management of a newspaper industry to quash an order made by the labour court under S. 17 of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, which will be referred to as the 1955 Act and S. 9 of the Working Journalists (Fixation of Rates and Wages) Act, 1958, which will be referred to as the 1958 Act. By that order, which was on an application presented by six quondam employees of the newspaper concern, the labour court directed the payment of the wages which became due under the 1955 Act on their fixation under the 1958 Act. Section 2(f) of the 1955 Act defines a working journalist, and it is undisputed that respondents 1 to 6 during the period to which the claim made by them related, were working journalists as defined by that clause. Section 17 of that Act authorizes an application by a "newspaper employee" to an authority specified by the State Government for a certificate to the Collector that the amount claimed by him was due, and, that certificate when granted, authorized the Collector to recover the amount specified in the certificate as an arrear of land revenue.

(2.) Section 9 of the 1958 Act contains similar provisions for the recovery of the amount fixed as wages under the provisions of that Act. The expression "newspaper employee" occurring in S. 17 of the 1955 Act is defined by S. 2(c) of that Act and that definition says that a "newspaper employee" means a working journalist.

(3.) The petitioner which is the newspaper concern did not dispute that respondents 1 to 6 were working journalists during the period to which the claim made by them related. But it was contended before the labour court that since on the date of the presentation of their applications for a certificate, they ceased to be employees, they were not working journalists at that point of time, and so the relevant statutory provisions because inapplicable. The labour court repelled that contention which is again reiterated before us by Sri Farukhi, the petitioner's learned advocate.