TRIBUNE TRUST Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, BHATINDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Tribune Trust through its Editor-in-Chief by means of present petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of writ of certiorari so as to quash Annexures P-7 to P-10. It is through orders Annexure P-19 and P-10 that petitioner has been summoned to answer the claim of respondent No. 2, Babu Ram Bansal that he made before the Labour Court, Bhatinda Under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The aforesaid summons were issued in pursuance of his applications filed under section 33-C(2) Annexure P-7 and P-8).

(2.) Brief facts on which relief aforesaid rests, reveal that petitioner is a registered trust and undertakes the publishing of three leading daily newspapers namely "The Tribune, The Dainik Tribune and The Punjabi Tribune'. The Central office of the trust is located at Chandigarh. The petitioner trust for collection and dissemination of news takes the services of three categories of persons. The first category consists of Correspondents, Senior Correspondents, Principal Correspondents and Special Correspondents. This first category of persons mentioned above are regular and whole time employees of the establishment. The second category consists of persons whose principal avocation is not journalism but they send news on ad hoc basis and are paid according to the space utilised as per the rates applicable. They are also paid a minimum retention allowance. The third category consists of part-time Correspondents whose principal avocation is that of journalism. These people work for multiplicity of newspaper establishments. As per the case of petitioner they are all 'Working Journalists' as defined in Section 2(f) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Condition of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1955'). Before the matter is proceeded any further, it shall be useful to see the definition of 'Working Journalists' as defined in Section 2(f) of the Act of 1955 and the same reads thus :-

(3.) Respondent No. 2 is stated to have filed a criminal complaint on 14.1.1986 against the petitioner trust in the Court of Judicial Magistrate I Class, Mansa under Sections 13, 15 and 18(1) of the Act of 1955. In particular, the allegations in the complaint aforesaid were that the petitioner was violating the Palekar Wage Board Award and Bachawat Wage Board Award inasmuch as he was not being paid his wages in accordance with the aforesaid awards. It was further alleged that he was not being paid Provident Fund as also Bonus. The petitioner in consequence of the summons issued to it, controverted the allegations as detailed above and after hearing the matter, the Magistrate dealing with the complaint, dismissed the same on 12.9.1989. A finding was recorded in the order aforesaid that respondent No. 2 was not an employee of the petitioner. However, without waiting for the result of the complaint aforesaid, respondent No. 2 moved two applications under Section 17 of the Act of 1955 before the Labour Commissioner, Punjab against the Dainik Tribune and the Punjabi Tribune respectively on 3.9.1988. Obviously, the relief claimed in the aforesaid two applications was the same regarding which complaint was made to the Magistrate as mentioned above. The petitioner, in the aforesaid circumstances, had to contest these applications as well wherein the preliminary objection was also raised that the Labour Commissioner, Punjab had no jurisdiction in the matter in view of Rule 36 of Working Journalist (Conditions of Service & Miscellaneous Provisions) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1957). Labour Commissioner who was dealing with the matter accepted the preliminary contention of petitioner and, therefore, rejected the applications of respondent No. 2 vide order dated 15.3.1989. It was held by the Labour Commissioner that the grievance of respondent No. 2 fell within the jurisdiction of Chandigarh Administration and since the Central office of the petitioner was located at Chandigarh, he could not proceed with the matter. It is thereafter that the respondent No. 2 for the same relief, as has been indicated above, moved two applications against Punjabi Tribune and Dainik Tribune under Section 330C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act in the Labour Court at Bhatinda. Copies of these applications are Annexures P-7 and P-8. The Labour Court dealing with the matter issued notices to the petitioner which have been annexed with the present petition as annexures P-9 and P-10. It is these two applications under Section 33-C(2) and in consequence whereof notices that were issued to petitioner which are sought to be quashed in the present petition as indicated in the earlier part of this judgment.