EXPRESS PUBLICATIONS MADURAI LTD Vs. K DAGLAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/management is before this Court challenging Ext. P4 order passed by the second respondent/Tribunal whereby cessation of employment of the first respondent/worker due to non renewal of Ext.P3 tenure prescribed in the contract of employment was interfered with, holding that it was not a case of non renewal of contract; that there was no proper termination of service and hence that the worker was liable to be deemed as continuing in service, for having not complied with the requirements of Section 25F of the Industrial disputes Act.

(2.) The case of the petitioner/Management is that such a wrong finding has been rendered by the Tribunal after holding that Exts. P2 and P3 contracts of employment are void having executed the same contrary to the 'public policy' and further as a measure of coercion, whereby the worker was forced to execute the same, whereas, there is absolutely no such case for the worker anywhere in the Claim Statement, nor has he adduced any evidence in this regard.

(3.) The petitioner was having a bureau in Kannur, where admittedly one correspondent alone was working, besides the first respondent engaged as part time Teleprinter Operator, as per Ext. P1 offer dated 25.05.1992. As borne by Ext.pl appointment order, the part-time engagement of the first respondent was w.e.f. 01.05.1992, for a monthly consolidated amount of Rs. 500/-, making it clear that, he, being a part time employee, the provisions of the Working Journalists & other Newspaper Employees (conditions of Service and Miscellaneous provisions) Act and other 'Acts' connected there to will not be applicable to him and that his service is liable to be terminated at any time without notice.