HINDUSTAN TIMES LTD. Vs. ARUN KUMAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant hereafter called "HT Ltd." appeals against a judgment of the learned Single Judge which upheld the Award of the Labour Court that found, in a reference, that the termination of one (late) Mr. Arun Kumar's services was illegal.

(2.) Late Mr. Arun Kumar, who is represented in this appeal by his legal heirs, was not a workman as ordinarily understood in labour law and was employed as a working journalist within the meaning of the Working Journalists & Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 ("The Working Journalists Act"). Under Sec. 3 of The Working Journalists Act, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 apply to, or in relation to, working journalists as they apply to, or in relation to, workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since Late Mr. Arun Kumar (hereafter referred to as the "workman") was employed as a working journalist with HT Ltd., the dispute around termination of his services was referred to the Labour Court.

(3.) The workman was employed by HT Ltd. as an employee with effect from 01.12.1973. Almost fifteen years into his employment, he was posted as a Special Correspondent to the North -East Region at Shillong on 10.08.1988. On 15.12.1990, he sent a telegram to HT Ltd.'s head office at New Delhi seeking privilege leave from 26.12.1990 to 19.01.1991. While the appellant denied receiving such an application in its submissions before the Labour Court, in the list of dates and events submitted in CWP No. 3465/1993 pending reference in the Labour Court, the appellant claimed that the workman remained absent beyond the period of leave originally granted to him. Based on the averments and materials, the Labour Court held that the appellant was deemed to have admitted the receipt of application for leave till 19.01.1991 and to have granted leave till then. The learned Single Judge did not interfere with this finding of fact and we are also not inclined to interfere with this finding in our jurisdiction over this letters patent appeal.