SURESH CHANDIRAM PALNITKAR Vs. VASUDEV SHANKAR DESHPANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this writ petition, the petitioners seek to get an Order and direction from this Court quashing the order passed by the J. M. F. C. Karad dated 6.2.1988, issuing process against the petitioners and order dated 26.4.1988 issuing summons to the petitioners.

(2.) A few facts which are evident from the Criminal Writ Petition are as under : (a)Petitioner no. 1 is the editor of daily "aikya" published from Satara. Petitioner no. 2 is the Executive Director of the said daily. According to the petitioners respondent no. 1 runs an advertising Agency in the name and style of 'sangam Jahirat Vitrak'. Respondent no. 1 used to be an agent of the petitioners for the purpose of collecting advertisements for their paper for a long period. He used to get commission from the petitioners per year. (b)According to the petitioners, Respondent no. 1 was not an employee and/or working journalist of the petitioners' daily. He used to merely collect advertisements and the petitioners used to pay him commission. Respondent no. 1, however, never used to pay amount collected by him to the petitioners immediately. The Petitioners, therefore, filed Special Civil Suit No.130 of 1986, in the Court of II Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara. It appears that the said suit was decreed on 14.11.1990 i. e. after filing of the present petition. According to the Petitioners, Respondent no. 1 was also claiming that he was entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 87,000/- by way of salary after the implementation of Palekar Award. This claim of Respondent no. 1 was also baseless. It appears that the said claim of Respondent no. 1 was subsequently turned down by the Labour Court. The petitioners have annexed to their affidavit in rejoinder a judgment of the Presiding Officer Labour Court, Satara dated 23.2.1995 wherein the Labour Court has clearly given a finding that Respondent no. 1 had failed to prove that he was employed by the petitioners as Newspaper Reporter for daily 'aikya' as contemplated in Palekar Award. Consequently the Labour Court held that he was not entitled to receive the amount claimed by him.

(3.) SINCE a categorical statement was made in this reply that the petitioners were liable to pay a huge amount to Respondent no. 1, the petitioners had no alternative but to refute the same by publishing a rejoinder in "daily Aikya" on 11th November, 1986. In this rejoinder the petitioners denied the allegations made by Respondent no. 1 in their reply dated 9.11. 1986.