MS. SHASHIKARAN R. SHRIVASTAVA C/O. ASHWINI, B/02, SHRISTI COMPLEX, SECTOR 5, MIRA ROAD (E), THANE Vs. M/S. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO. LTD. TIME OF INDIA BUILDING, DR. D.N. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 001

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India raise the following common question of law ;

(2.) The petitioners are working as Sub-Editors with the same employer i.e. the respondent to the two petitions. They filed Complaint (ULP) No. 17 of 2004 and Complaint (ULP) No. 520 of 2005 respectively alleging unfair labour practices on the part of the respondent under Items - 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule-IV of the PULP Act. The respondent contested the complaints, inter alia, on the ground of their maintainability. By the orders impugned in the petitions, the Industrial Tribunal dismissed the complaints holding that the same were not maintainable as the petitioners are not employees within the meaning of Sec. 3(5) of the PULP Act. Considering the nature of the question to be addressed in this petition any further reference to the facts alleged in the complaints is not required.

(3.) Admittedly, the petitioners are the working journalists governed by the W.J. Act. Since they seek to resort to the remedies under the PULP Act, they need to establish that they are covered by the definition of "employee " under the PULP Act. The definition thereunder reads as under:-