1. By the impugned award dated 24.01.2020, reference made to the labour court has been decided against the petitioner. In substance, the labour court has found that the petitioner is not a "working journalist" and does not come within the ambit of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1955').
2. Shri Man Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a journalist within the meaning of the Act of 1955. The labour court had earlier decided the issue in favour of the petitioner by order dated 02.01.2019 and hence could not reverse the aforesaid findings in favour of the petitioner. The findings of the labour court are perverse.
3. Per contra, Shri Mukund Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel submits that the order dated 02.01.2019 passed by the labour court was without receiving full evidence on behalf of the parties. The final order was passed upon due consideration of the evidence introduced by both the parties and the judgement cannot be faulted. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot adjudicate any disputed findings of fact, particularly, when no perversity in the award has been established.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. The following reference was made to the labour court:
A. Whether the workman is entitled to the benefits of Majithia Wage Board Award? if yes, the nature of relief which can be granted to the workman Sandeep Nagar?
6. The said reference was made under Section 17(2) of the Act of 1955 read with Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Benefits of the Majithia Wage Board Award could be granted to the petitioner only if he was a working journalist as contemplated in the Act of 1955.
7. Upon consideration of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidences in the record as well as the submissions on behalf of the parties, the labour court made these findings. The principal avocation of the petitioner is teaching and not journalism. The petitioner was a part time journalist. The petitioner does not come within the embrass of definition "working journalist" as contemplated in the Act of 1955.
8. Some of the pleadings and evidences which led the labour court to make the aforesaid findings shall now be discussed.
9. The petitioner claimed in his application before the labour court that he was engaged as a reporter w.e.f. 07.04.2011 with the respondent establishment. He claimed entitlement to wages and other benefits recommended by the Majithia Wage Board Award. The respondent employer in the written pleadings submitted before the labour court strenuously contested entitlements claimed by the petitioner and asserted that the principal avocation of the petitioner was teaching". He used to send stories and news from time to time as a hobby. Only a person whose principal avocation is a journalism is covered under the definition of "working journalist" defined under Section 2f of the Act of 1955.
10. The petitioner deposed before the labour court that he was appointed on 07.04.2011. Prior to his appointment the petitioner had submitted an application for appointment along with his educational testimonials. Upon an interview conducted by the employers, the petitioner was engaged as a full time reporter. An appointment letter was issued to him two and a half months after his appointment. He submitted a number of stories and reports and was paid lump sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month.
11. On behalf of the employers, one Pankaj Kumar Srivastava who was working as Regional H.R. Head deposed as E.W.-1. E.W.-1 in his testimony before the labour court stated that Sandeep Nagar (workman) had made an application to the respondent employer/establishment stating that he wanted to engage in journalism as a hobby and that his principal avocation was teaching. On the foot of the aforesaid application the petitioner was appointed in the respondent establishment.
12. The petitioner received appointment letter on 16.06.2011. The appointment letter dated 16.06.2011 was introduced by the employer as a documentary evidence and was marked as Exh.1. The said document and its contents were proved by EW-1. The recitals in the letter dated 16.06.2021 were reiterated by EW-1 before the labour court. The petitioner admitted his signatures to the aforesaid documents.
13. Exh. E-1 is a critical piece of evidence and would require slightly detailed consideration. The letter of appointment dated 16.06.2011 references the application filed by the petitioner for appointment wherein he had disclosed that his principal avocation is teaching and not journalism and that he was contributing news, stories and report for publication in our Hindi daily, Hindustan, Meerut. On the foot of the said credentials given by the petitioner in the letter dated 07.04.2011, the terms and conditions of his appointment are stated.
14. It would be apposite to extract the relevant part of the appointment letter dated 16.06.2021:
"Apropos to your application dated April 7, 2011, that you intend to contribute news, reports and stories for publication in our Hindi daily, Hindustan, Meerut, from xxxx and that your principal avocation is Teaching and not journalism, we wish to inform you that your application has been accepted on the following terms and conditions:
I. You will be sending news reports/stories about sports, political, culture, social matters, education, crime etc. which you consider of public interest and fit to be published in our paper.
II. You will be paid a fixed amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) per month for sending news reports/stories.
III. You will not be getting any other expenses spent on collecting news reports/stories nor will you be reimbursed secretarial expenses on this account except to the extent, which may be specified agreed to by the Company. You will also not be supplied any stationary.
IV. You will inform the Company at least one month in advance in case you change your principal avocation."
15. The labour court which had the benefit of observing the demeanor of the witnesses disbelieved the defence of the petitioner that he had repudiated the appointment letter.
16. To the contrary, the labour court which also observed E.W. -1 Pankaj Kumar Srivastava during his deposition and found his testimony to be credible. A perusal of the testimony of Pankaj Kumar Srivstava as appended to the writ petition discloses that the credibility of the said witness could not be shaken after cross examination.
17. The petitioner had also admitted his signatures to the aforesaid appointment letter. Heavy burden lay upon the petitioner to dispute the correctness of the contents of the appointment letter dated 16.06.2011 which, as seen earlier, he failed to discharge. Denial of the letter dated 16.06.2011 of the petitioner was weak and self serving and was rightly distrusted by the labour court. Similarly there is no error in the labour court award upholding the credit of EW-1 as a witness and believing his testimony.
18. The arrative shall now be fortified by statutory provisions and good authority in point.
Section 2f of the Act, 1955 is reproduced below:
"working journalist" means a person whose principal avocation is that of a journalist and 2[who is employed as such, either whole-time or part-time, in, or in relation to, one or more newspaper establishments], and includes an editor, a leader-writer, news editor, sub-editor, feature-writer, copy-tester, 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."
19. The Bombay High Court in Ballubhai Javerbhai Panchal Vs. Sandesh Limited and others, reported at 1997 SCC OnLine Bom 598, while considering the provisions of the Act of 1955 as well as the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, held that to come within the ambit of "working journalist" as defined in the Act of 1955, the employee has to establish that his principal avocation is journalism.
20. It was thus duly proved by legal evidence before the labour court that the petitioner was not a full time journalist and that his principal avocation was teaching. Further the respondent no.2 was not his sole employer. With these facts conclusively established in the above said manner, the finding of the labour court that that petitioner does not fall within the ambit of "working journalist" as defined in the Act of 1955 cannot be faulted.
21. I also see merit in the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the order dated 02.01.2019 only refused to non suit the petitioner in absence of evidence and allowing the parties to lead evidence and subsequent to 02.01.2019.
22. The issue whether the petitioner was a working journalist within the meaning of Section 2f of the Act of 1955, could be decided only after receiving complete evidence of parties. The order dated 02.01.2019 does not adjudicate the said issue in accordance with law as full evidence of parties had not been adduced till then. To treat the order dated 02.01.2019 as final, would preempt an adjudication on merits as per law and occasion a miscarriage of justice.
23. In wake of the preceding narrative, this Court finds no infirmity in the award passed by the learned labour court. 24. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.10.2021 Dhananjai