M RAGHURAM Vs. LABOUR COURT HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a post-graduate in Communication and Journalism (MCJ). He has filed this writ petition, questioning the award dated 20.11.1990 in I. D. No. 59 of 1980 on the file of the Labour Court, Hyderabad. The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows :- The petitioner was appointed by the 2nd respondent viz., Deccan Chronicle, an English Daily published from Secunderabad, as an apprentice by proceedings dated 22.11.1978 for a period of six months with effect from 1.12.1978. On completion of apprenticeship, he was appointed as a staff reporter by proceedings dated 17.7.1979 for a period of one year with effect from 1.7.1979. Clause (2) of the said proceedings provided that the management shall have absolute rights to terminate his services without any notice or notice pay in lieu of notice. In exercise of that right, the services of the petitioner were terminated by proceedings dated 23.10.1979. It is stated in the said proceeding that his services were no longer required. Thereupon, he made a representation to the 2nd respondent on 24.10.1979, requesting for reinstatement. As there was no response thereto, he raised an industrial dispute and the same was referred by the Government of Andhra Pradesh by G. O. Ms. No. 653, dated 5.9.1980 to the Labour Court, Hyderabad for adjudication. The said dispute was registered as I. D. No. 59 of 1980. The Labour Court by its award dated 16.10.1984, holding that the termination of the services of the petitioner was not justified, directed the 2nd respondent to reinstate him into service and pay him 50% back wages with all consequential benefits. The 2nd respondent questioned the said award by filing Writ Petition 7199 of 1985 before this Court and the same was disposed of in the following terms : "The petitioner herein challenges the award made under the Industrial Disputes Act by the Labour Court. His argument in the main is that the first respondent is a working journalist under Section 2(f) of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 and the definition of 'working journalist' under Section 2(f) is exhaustive and does not include apprentice and hence the provisions of Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act are not attracted in the case of the first respondent's termination. As this being a special enactment, the Labour Court will have to consider under the provisions of the said enactment. Though this contention was not raised before the Labour Court, in as much as ex facie the first respondent is a Working Journalist and this being a question of law, it is quite apparent that the case has to be considered within the ambit of Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955. Hence, the matter is remitted to the Labour Court for due consideration after giving notices to all the concerned parties. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs."

(2.) Thus, the matter again came up for consideration before the Labour Court, Hyderabad. At that stage, 2nd respondent raised an additional plea to the following effect : Petitioner, who was working as a staff reporter is not a 'workman' as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, but he is a 'working journalist' as defined under Section 2(f) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (for short 'the Journalists Act'). The definition of a 'working journalist' under Section 2(f) is exhaustive and it does not include an 'apprentice'. Therefore, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are not applicable to the petitioner. It is necessary to mention here that in the additional Counter filed by the 2nd respondent before the Labour Court, there is no plea that the petitioner was appointed as an 'apprentice' under the provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961 and his appointment is governed by the provisions of the said Act and the rules made thereunder. However, the Labour Court, Hyderabad having found that the petitioner must have been appointed by the 2nd respondent as an apprentice under the Apprentices Act, 1961 and therefore the period he worked as apprentice cannot be taken into account so as to treat him as a 'workman' as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, passed the impugned award holding that the reference made by the Government is not maintainable and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) Sri J. Chalameswar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') have no application to the present case and thus, there was relationship of employee and employer between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent during the period of apprenticeship also. Therefore, the order terminating the services of the petitioner is in contravention of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Section 3 of the Journalists Act. In opposition, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent that the provisions of the Act are very much applicable and thus, there was no relationship of employee and employer during the period the petitioner worked as apprentice. Therefore, the principal point for consideration is whether the provisions of the Act are applicable to the present case and if so whether they have been complied with?