SHRI INDRAKUMAR JAIN Vs. DAINIK BHASKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Petitions are placed before us upon the reference made by the learned Single Judge to answer the question of maintainability of a complaint of unfair labour practice by a working journalist before an Industrial Court on the basis that a working journalist is covered by the definition of "employee" under Sec. 3(5) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.

(2.) Writ Petition Nos. 9112 of 2019 and 12022 of 2019 are cross-petitions challenging the order passed by the Industrial Court in the Complaint filed by Indrakumar Jain, a working journalist. The Industrial Court has dismissed the complaint. Writ Petition No.9112 of 2019 is filed by Indrakumar Jain challenging the order of the Industrial Court in its entirety as his complaint has been dismissed holding that he is not an 'employee' under Sec. 3(5) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices (MRTU & PULP) Act, 1971. The employer, Newspaper establishment-Dainik Bhaskar, has filed Writ Petition No.12022 of 2019 to the limited extent of findings about the absence of liability of Indrakumar Jain.

(3.) Writ Petition No. 3541 of 2019 involves a dispute between a newspaper establishment- Pioneer Book and Devendra Pratap Singh, a working journalist. Pioneer had objected to the maintainability of the complaint by Devendra Pratap Singh filed under the provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act on the ground that he does not fall in the definition of the term 'employee' within the meaning of Sec. 3(5) of the MRTU & PULP Act. The Labour Court directed Pioneer to reinstate Devendra Pratap Singh with full back-wages and continuity of service with arrears of wages. The Industrial Court rejected the Revision Application, and both orders are challenged.