MOHAN NAGPAL Vs. EDITOR, NAVBHARAT TIMES, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue regarding scope of Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "the Act") arises for consideration in this case. The petitioner had moved an application under Section 33(c)(2) of the Act before Labour Court, Bhatinda, claiming recovery of arrears of wages as per Palekar Wage Board Award, bonus, employees provident fund, family pension, interim relief etc. The Labour Court has dismissed the application, being not maintainable by holding that right to benefit sought to be computed under the Section must be an existing one. The petitioner accordingly has impugned this finding through the present writ petition. Counsel for the parties have accordingly debated about the scope of Section 33(c)(2) of the Act.

(2.) THE petitioner was employed as Correspondent by Navbharat Times (respondent No.1) on 8.5.1975 and had worked as such. The petitioner claims that respondent No.1 did not pay the arrears of wages to the petitioner despite number of representations. The petitioner accordingly contends that he was forced to approach the Labour Court through application under Section 33(c)(2) of the Act for recovery of arrears of wages.

(3.) THE petitioner has placed on record his appointment letter dated 8.5.1976. As per the appointment letter, the petitioner was to start sending news on probation. He was not to get any return and his appointment was to be considered on the basis of the quality of the news reports. As per the petitioner, his services were regularized on 1.3.1977. The petitioner was to get remunerations under the rules, which was Rs.1/ - per column inch as was provided in letter dated 1.3.1977. The petitioner has also made reference to the letters initiated by respondent No 1 to M/s. Nortan Dass and Brothers, News Agents at Bhatinda, apprising the agency about the appointment of the petitioner as a Correspondent and that he be supplied complementary copy of Nav Bharat Times free of costs. These documents and a communication by respondent No.1 to the effect that the petitioner was drawing minimum wages in receipt of retainers prescribed under the Wage Board recommendations for working Journalists were placed on record of the Labour Court. On this basis, the petitioner claims to have been appointed as whole time Correspondent and described himself as a working Journalist as per the definition given under Section 2(f) of Working Journalists and other News Paper Employees (Condition of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955. As per the petitioner, his principal avocation was that of a Journalist. He accordingly claims that he was entitled to be paid as per 3rd Wage Board Award by Justice Palekar, which is popularly known as Palekar Award. It is averred that 3rd Wage Board was constituted under Section 13 of the Working Journalist Act and respondent No.1 would fall in 1 -B Class as prescribed under Palekar Award. Reference is made to the definition of part time Correspondent, which means that a Correspondent, who is on the establishment of a newspaper and whose principal avocation is that of journalism. As per Para 19 of the award, part time Correspondent is to be paid not less than 1/3rd of the basic wage (basic pay + D.A.) applicable to full time correspondent at similar level. Payment should be made on column basis and rate is to be settled by mutual negotiation.