KASTURI AND SONS LIMITED Vs. HINDUSTATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are appeals under Cl. 15 of the Letters Patent agaisnt the judgment of Veeraswami, J., in a batch of writ petitions filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution by the management of the "Hindu" for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the orders passed by the labour court, Madras, under S. 9 (2) of the Working Journalists (Fixation of Rates of Wages) Act XXIX of 1958 directing the payment of certain sums by the management to respondent 3 in the several appeals. The latter are being employed as copyholders in the press. The management have prescribed a grades system of wages to them. Their work is associated with the correction of proofs in the prepartion of the daily newspaper run by it. In preparing the daily, the matter taken up for publication, whether it be in the form of manuscript or typed script, goes through four stages of proof correction before it is finally incorporation in the final publication. The first or what is called the rough proof is checked up by the manuscript or typed script by two sets of persons acting together, namely, the proofreaders and the copyholders. The latter reads out the matter given for printing, while the proofreader follows the same with the printed proof in his hands.

(2.) THE proofreader, who is a acquainted with the symbols employed in proof correction, makes the corrections wherever necessary both with a view to bring it in conformity with the original and also to correct mistakes in printing. This dual agency for the correction of first proof, we are told, is employed only in a few newspapers among whom the "Hindu" is one. That undoubtedly facilities quicker despatch of work. THE rough proof thus corrected goes to the press again for a second proof called the author's final. After the correction of that proof the third proof known as final galley emerges from the press. That again is corrected and the fourth proof called the page proof comes for the final correction. Except at the state of the rough proof in the correction of which the copyholder does only the reading part of the comparison and correction in all the subsequent stages of the work the duties pertaining to correction of proof are given to the copyholder as well as the proofreader indiscriminately. In other words, printed proofs at the stage of the author's final galley and page proofs are distributed for correction not merely to proofreaders but to copyholders as well.THE respondents in these several appeals occupying the specified category as copyholders on the staff, claiming that they were proofreaders within the class of persons so designated, in the recommendations of the Wage Committee appointed under the Working Journalists (Fixation of Rates of Wages) Act, 1958, and as such entitled to receive emoluments, applied to the State Government for recovery of arrears of salary due to them on that basis (after giving credit to the actual amounts received by them from the management.) THE Government in due course referred the applications for adjudication to the labour court at Madras. THE management contested the applications stating that the copyholders could never be regarded as proofreaders.

(3.) THE management declined to extent to them that benefit on the ground that although the definition of the term "working journalist" in the Act purported to include them, the object and scope of the enactment did not envisage such persons getting benefits thereunder. This resulted in an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the industrial tribunal at Madras. Both the tribunal and Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., in proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution that followed the decision of the tribunal held that proofreaders in the "Hindu" were entitled to all the benefits under the 1955 Act as they were working journalists within the express terms of the definition contained in the Act. THE learned Judge further observed : "It is true that some evidence was adduced in this case to the effect that the 'copyholders' had less educational attainments and were less competent than 'proofreaders' and that they were not required to be acquainted with the symbols usually employed in the printing business in proof correction. But I am unable to hold that because of this reason they formed a different class altogether from proofreaders in the 'Hindu' establishment. It would be seen that they corrected three out of four proofs from the 'author final' stage along with the regular proof-examiners. Whatever might be the position in those cases where their duties were as copyholders exclusively, viz., reading from the original for comparison with the print in proof in the case on hand, they were in the 'Hindu' employed substantially as proofexaminers." *THE question then is whether the duties performed by the copyholders would entitle them to be classed as proofreaders for the purpose of interpreting the recommendations of the Wage Committee. THE decision of Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., in the case mentioned above was before the committee when it considered the matter. In para 102 of its report the committee has stated :"In the Madras case already referred to copyholders in the 'Hindu' were held to be proofreaders because at certain stages they examined proofs. Copyholders as such are not expressly mentioned in the definition in S.2(f) of the Act and they would be entitled to wages of a working journalist only if they show that they come within the terms of the definition of working journalists." *Turning to the definition of "proofreader" as given in the schedule to the report which we have extracted above, we find that his duties are to ensure strict conformity of the printed matter with the editor copy and part of his functions will be to correct slips of spelling, mistakes of grammar and syntax. It would be sufficient even if he were to get them corrected. From what we have said above, it will be clear that the work done by the copyholders in the "Hindu" are the same as that of proofreaders from the second to the fourth stage of proof correction. Those stages undoubtedly involve correction of discrepancies, slips of spelling, mistakes, etc. Even in regard to first stage it cannot be said that their functions are essentially different from those specified in the definition.