BEHAR JOURNALS LTD Vs. ALI HASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this case is the Behar Journals Limited, Patna. Respondent No. 2, R. K. Mishra, was appointed on a salary of Rs. 125 per month as a probationer sub-editor by M.S.M. Sharma, the Editor of the "Searchlight", a daily paper published by the petitioner-company on probation for six months. A copy of the letter of appointment is annexure 'B' to this petition. According to its terms, his service was terminable during the above period of six months without notice and without assigning any reason. There appears to have been some difference between the workmen of the petitioner-company and its management which ultimately led to the organization of the workmen into an Union known as the Behar Journals Limited Employees' Union, Patna, through whom respondent No, 2 is represented. This Union was registered in February, 1955. Ultimately, for reasons not necessary to be stated, the workmen went on strike from the 3rd of February to the 9th of February, 1956. Respondent No. 2 was a member of the action committee of the Union, and it is said that he took active part in that strike. On the 29th of February, 1956, however, he was discharged from service by the said Editor as he did not require his services from March 1, 1956 A dispute thereafter arose between the management of the petitioner-company and its workmen represented by the above Union in regard to certain matters including the discharge of respondent No. 2 with which alone we are concerned in this case. The Governor of Bihar acting under Section 7 read with Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act XLV of 1947), constituted an Indus trial Tribunal of which Shri Ali Hasan was the sole member, and referred the said dispute to the Tri bunal for adjudication. The reference in regard to the matter in question in this case was whether the discharge of Shri R. K. Mishra was unjustified and if so whether he is entitled to reinstatement or any other relief.

(2.) There was some difference between the parties as to the date of appointment of Shri R. K, Mishra. According to the management, he was appointed on the 1st of September, 1955, whereas, according to the Union, he was verbally appointed on the 24th of June, 1955, but the letter of appointment was given to him on the 1st of September, 1955. The Tribunal agreed with the management and held that he was appointed on the 1st of September, "1955, and not on the 24th of June, 1955, as contended by the Union. On the merits it held, that, according to the Certified Standing Orders of the petitioner-company, respondent No. 2 was to be on probation for a period of three months only even though under the terms of the appointment letter the period of probation was six months and that till before the strike there was no record of any bad work of the said respondent so as to prevent him from being made permanent. It also held that he was entitled to have been given opportunity to show cause before his services were terminated summarily and found that it was a glaring case of arbitrary discharge. The Tribunal accordingly gave an award and ordered the reinstatement of respondent No. 2 with SO per cent of the wages etc. from the date of his discharge inasmuch as it was admitted by him that he had been earning something by working part time in some other press. Being, thus, aggrieved, the petitioner has presented this application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the quashing of the above award.

(3.) In support of the application the first point urged on behalf of the petitioner is that respondent No. 2, being a sub-editor, was not a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act and, as such, there was no dispute between the management and the workman with regard to the point in question, and the reference was void. The argument, in my opinion, is based on misconception of law. An Act called the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (Act XLV of 1955), was enacted by the Parliament to regulate certain conditions of service of working journalists and other persons employed in newspaper establishments. "Working journalist" has been defined in Section 2(f) of that Act to mean a person whose principal avocation is that of a journalist and who is employed as such in, or in relation to, any newspaper establishment, and includes an editor, a leader-writer, news editor, sub-editor, feature-writer, copy-taster, reporter, correspondent, cartoonist, news-photographer and proof-reader, but does not include any such person who (i) is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or (ii) being employed in a supervisory capacity, performs either by the nature of the duties attached to his office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature. Thus, according to this definition, respondent No. 2, a sub-editor, was a working journalist. Section 3 (1) of that Act lays down that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947), as in force for the time being, shall, subject to the modifications specified in Sub-section (2) (with which we are not concerned in the present case) apply to, or in relation to, working journalists as they apply to, or in relation to, workmen within the meaning of that Act. It is, therefore, manifest that respondent No. 2 was a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act and the reference, therefore, was perfectly valid. The argument raised on behalf of the petitioner on this point, therefore, fails.