WORKMEN OF SADAKT Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for quashing the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Patna, dated May 8, 1986, copy of the said award is made Annexure 1 to this writ application.

(2.) The petitioner claims to be the member of the registered union of the working journalists in the State of Bihar and working in Urdu daily newspapers published from Patna. The Union of India in the Ministry of Labour by notification, dated February 9, 1979, constituted a Tribunal under Section 13-A(1) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for the purpose of fixing and revising the rates of wages. Similarly another Tribunal was constituted for non-journalist newspaper employees by notification, dated February 9, 1979 in terms of Section 13-DD of the Act under the Chairmanship of Justice Sri PALEKAR, a retired Judge of the Supreme Court. The learned Judge submitted the award on August 13, 1980 which was accepted by Government of India vide notification, dated December 26, 1980. After acceptance of the award by the Government of India, the Katibs working in the daily Urdu newspapers published in Patna, persuaded their employer to pay the same pay-scale and other benefits applicable to the calligraphist, as fixed by the Palekar award, on the ground that the Katibs are performing the same work as of calligraphist. The management refused to implement the Palekar award. The Joint Labour Commissioner held meeting with the representatives of the several daily newspapers in order to come to an amicable settlement. Ultimately, the Labour Commissioner communicated the decision of the meeting and advised the management to implement the Palekar award after treating the Katibs as calligraphists. Being aggrieved by the said direction of the Labour Commissioner the proprietors of such newspapers filed a writ petition before this Court being C.W.J.C. No. 3506 of 1981 and the High Court remitted the case back to the Labour Commissioner by its order, dated March 7, 1984, with an observation to refer the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. Pursuant thereto, the Government of Bihar in the Department of Labour, Employment and Training vide notification, dated June 28, 1985, referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, which was registered as reference Case No. 3 of 1985, for adjudication in the following terms: "Whether katibs are calligraphists and entitled to the pay-scale fixed for the calligraphists in the Palekar award? If not, what relief they are entitled to ?" Pursuant to the notice received both the workman as well as the management filed their respective written statements before the Industrial Tribunal.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that they being the katibs have been working as calligraphists for a long time but they are not being paid the wages and other benefits as per the Palekar award applicable to the calligraphists and they fulfilled and satisfied all the requirements of all the journalists and as such, they are entitled to the same pay-scale and other benefits applicable to the calligraphists, as recommended by the Palekar award. The management, however, has denied the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioners who are known as Katibs are not the working journalists and their job is to rewrite only. Their principal avocation is neither that of journalist nor they are doing any journalistic work. Their further case is that the Katibs are not the employees of the newspaper establishments nor they have been ever employed in any journalistic work. According to the management, they worked on contractual basis and, as such, there is no relationship of master and servant. Their wages are paid purely on the basis of the number of columns rewritten by them. In sum and substance, they not calligraphists and, as such, not entitled to the wages as calligraphists as per the Palekar award. The workmen as well as the management has examined altogether 7 witnesses each and produced various documentary evidences in support of their respective cases. On consideration of the evidence on record both oral and documentary the Tribunal has held in Para. 25 of its award as follows: