PRATAP CHANDRA MOHANTY Vs. GENERAL MANAGER UNITED NEWS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE significant question to be decided in this writ petition is whether the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have application to newspaper employees other than working journalists. This question has arisen on these facts. The petitioner was initially appointed as a stringer at Puri by opp. party No. 1, General Manager, United News of India, on a consolidated honorarium of Rs, 40/ -per month. This was in. 1973. After completion of the probationary period, he was confirmed in service. Thereafter his name was included in the mailing list as District Correspondent. Having been treated as a Correspondent/his ''honorarium was raised to Rs. 75/ - per month. He continued to discharge this function. ln the meantime, Palekar Tribunal was constituted under the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the. 'Working Journalists Act') to fix wages in respect of working journalists. The Tribunal gave its award on 12 -8 -1980. The case of the petitioner is that on the basis of the said award he became entitled to higher wages and accordingly, he sent representations to his employer who did not respond. Suddenly/by a letter dated 25 -8 -1983, the service of the petitioner was terminated with effect from 15 -9 -1983:

(2.) AN industrial dispute was raised relating to the termination of the petitioner's service on the ground that the same amounted to retrenchment but was ordered without complying with the requirements of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The dispute was referred for adjudication by the Labour Court. A preliminary objection was raised relating to main - tainability of the reference on the ground that the petitioner was not a working journalist and as such not a 'workman' as defined by Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, The learned Labour Court has held that the reference is not maintainable and has answered' the reference accordingly. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) IN assailing the view taken by the Labour Court, Shri Dhal con - tends that to be a working journalist, it is not necessary that the principal avocation of a correspondent must be that of a journalist. To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel, we have to know the definition of 'working journalist' given in Section 2(f) of the Working journalists Act, which reads as below :