AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjay Yadav, J.
Shri Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Harish Agnihotri, learned Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1,2 and 4.
Shri K. S. Wadhwa, learned counsel with Ms. Vandana Shrivastava learned counsel for respondent No. 3.
Challenge put forth in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the Revenue Recovery Certificate dated 11-4-1996 issued u/s 17(1) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Misc. Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1955).
The facts briefly are that, the petitioner a Society registered under the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter to be referred as Act of 1960), publishes a weekly styled as "Madhya Pradesh Sahkari Samachar Saptahik". The respondent No. 3 was employed as an Editor since 7-2-1980. That, w.e.f. 31-12-1980 the services of the respondent No. 3 were dispensed with as no more required. The dispensation of service resulted in raising the industrial dispute which when adjudicated culminated into an award dated 5-5-1993 whereby, the petitioner was reinstated with backwages.
The award dated 5-5-1993 was subjected to challenge in Writ Petition No. 3234/1993 wherein because of the order dated 19-10-1993, the respondent No. 3 was reinstated in service in compliance to section 17B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, presently the said petition does not survives as the same has been dismissed.
Be that as it may, the fact is that the respondent No. 3 was reinstated. After his reinstatement the respondent No. 3 approached the Deputy Labour Commissioner for the difference of wages from July, 1993 to February, 1995, invoking the provision under the Act of 1955, i.e. section 17 which stipulates :
Recovery of money due from an employer. - (1) Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employee himself, or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf or in case of the death of the employee, any member of his family may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to him and if the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector, and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.
(2) If any question arises as to the amount due under this Act to a newspaper employee from his employer, the State Government may, on its own motion or upon allocation made to it, refer the question to any Labour Court constituted by it under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in the State and the said Act or law shall have effect in relation to the Labour Court as if question so referred were a matter referred to the Labour Court for the adjudication under that Act or law.
(3) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the State Government which made the reference and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided in subsection (1).
The petitioner herein raised objection as to the maintainability of the application under the Act of 1955 on the ground that, the petitioner being a Society registered under the Act of 1960 is not amenable to the provisions of Act of 1955 as it is not a newspaper establishment and that the dispute if any between the petitioner and its worker would form the issue u/s 55 of the Act of 1960 and by virtue of the bar as imposed vide section 82 of the Act of 1960.
The Deputy Labour Commissioner, however, held that the petitioner, an Editor, being a working journalist is entitled for the benefits as enured u/s 16 of the Act of 1955. Accordingly, RRC for recovery of Rs. 1,29,517/-being the difference of wages from July, 1993 to February, 1995 was issued. The petitioner initially challenged the RRC before the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies. The Assistant Registrar, however, declined to adjudicate being beyond its jurisdiction.
Petitioner assails the RRC on the ground that, the petitioner being a society registered under the Act of 1960 the provisions of the Act of 1955 is not attracted as the petitioner cannot be construed to be a "newspaper establishment" and the respondent No. 3 as "Working Journalist". It is urged that, the respondent being an employee of the Co-operative Society is governed by the service rules framed in consonance with the provisions contained under the Act of 1960. It is further urged that, in case of a dispute between the employer and the employee as in the present case, the remedy lies u/s 55 of the Act of 1960 and not under the Act of 1955. The petitioner further contends that, unless there is an adjudication of a right an RRC raising the demand in lieu of uncertain antecedent rights is illegal and have no sanction of law. It is on these grounds, the petitioner challenges the RRC.
The respondent No. 3 on his turn supports the order. It is contended, inter alia, that, being appointed as an Editor of a weekly published by the petitioner Society and having been adjudged as such by the Labour Court vide its award dated 5-5-1993, right accrues in favour of the petitioner for wages as per his designation as per the provision of the Act of 1955. It is contended that, since there exists no dispute regarding status of the petitioner being a journalist the RRC issued in pursuance to section 17(1) cannot be interfered with.
Considered the rival submissions.
The first question is whether the petitioner is amenable to the provisions of the Act of 1955.
In the case at hand, the reply filed by the petitioner in response to the proceedings u/s 17(1) on 6-10-1995 indicate that the periodical named the styled as "Madhya Pradesh Sahakari Samachar Saptahik" is published weekly disseminating news about the Co-operative movements. The contents thus constitute news. Regard in this context can be had of the Judgment in All India Reporter Karamchari Sangh and Others Vs. All India Reporter Limited and Others, wherein their Lordships were pleased to observe:
The definition of the expression "newspaper" has already been set out above. In order to be a newspaper a work must be a (i) printed work, (ii) a periodical; and (iii) should contain public news or comments on public news. Any other class of printed periodical work as may, from time to time, be notified in this behalf by the Central Government in the Official Gazette may also be a newspaper. There is no dispute in the present case that the law reports are printed works and that they are periodicals. The only question which remains to be considered is whether they contain public news or comments on public news.
Entry 39 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution reads thus : "Newspapers, books and printing presses." Newspapers and books are no doubt shown as separate items but the distinction between them sometimes becomes very thin or totally vanishes. In this connection it is necessary to reproduce a passage from the Report of the Royal Commission on the Press (1947-49), appointed by the British Government and presided over by Sir William David Ross. It reads thus : "The newspaper and periodical Press of Great Britain consists of over 4,000 publications ranging from newspapers famous throughout the world to the journals of obscure societies. Its limits are ill-defined, for there is no definition of either ''newspaper'' or ''periodical'' which enables each to be infallibly distinguished from the other and from publications which are properly speaking neither. The term ''newspaper'' is usually applied (except so far as concerns the important class of trade newspapers) to publications devoted mainly to recording current events, and ''periodicals'' to magazines, reviews, and journals which, insofar as they are concerned with current events at all, are concerned to comment rather than to report; but newspapers merge into advertising sheets, periodicals into books and pamphlets, and both into one another;...... 11. The expression "news" is not defined in the Act. Several definitions of the expression "news" collected from the different dictionaries and digests have been cited before us. It is enough if we refer to the meaning of the word "news" given in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary for the purposes of this case. It says that "news" means tidings, new information of recent events; new occurrences as a subject of report or talk..................
The Act of 1995 was enacted with an object to regulate certain condition of service of working journalists and other persons employed in news paper establishment.
Newspaper defined u/s 2(b) means :
(b) "newspaper" means any printed periodical work containing public news or comments on public news and includes such other class of printed periodical work as may, from time to time, be notified in this behalf by the Central Government in the Official Gazette;
Newspaper establishment defined u/s 2(d) means :
(d) "newspaper establishment" means an establishment under the control of any person or body of persons, whether incorporated or not, for the production or publication of one or more newspaper or for conducting any news agency or syndicate; and includes newspaper establishments specified as one establishment under the Schedule. Explanation. - For the purposes of this clause -
(a) different departments, branches and centres of newspaper establishments shall be treated as parts thereof, -.
(b) a printing press shall be deemed to be a newspaper establishment if the principal business thereof is to print newspaper.
In the present case, it is not denied by the petitioner that they do not publish a weekly bulletin having circulation amongst the members, employees and Co-operative workers. It is also not denied that, there exists a separate wing which looks after the work of publication and an editor is appointed for said purpose. That being so, the petitioner has all the trappings of the "newspaper establishment".
Section 2(c) defines "newspaper employees" to mean :
(c) "newspaper employee" means any working journalist, and includes any other person employed to do any work in or in relation to any newspaper establishment;
Similarly, section 2(f) defines "Working Journalist to mean :
(f) "working journalist" means a person whose principal avocation is that of a journalist and [who is employed as such, either whole-time or part-time, in, or in relation to, one or more newspaper establishment 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, function mainly of a managerial nature:
Thus an editor is a working journalist. The fact that, petitioner is an editor is also established from the award dated 5-5-1993.
Furthermore section 16 stipulates :
Effect of laws and agreements inconsistent with this Act. - (1) the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law or in the terms of any award, agreement or contract of service, whether made before or after the commencement of this Act:
Provided that where under any such award, agreement, contract of service or otherwise a newspaper employee is entitled to benefits in respect of any matter which are more favourable to him than those to which he would be entitled under this Act, the newspaper employee shall continue to be entitled to the more favourable benefits in respect of that matter, notwithstanding that he receives benefits in respect of other matters under this Act.
(2) Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to preclude any newspaper employee from entering into an agreement with an employer for granting him rights or privileges in respect of any matter which are more favourable to him that those to which he would be entitled under this Act.
Thus the expanse of the Act of 1955 by virtue of section 16 would include within its fold the petitioner as well the respondent No. 3 being the "newspaper establishment" and the "Working Journalist".
In the case at hand, there being no dispute regarding the status and the rate, the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the remedy in respect of the dispute between the employer and employees lies u/s 55 of the Act of 1960 is of no consequence. This thus answer the submission of the petitioner that because of the availability of a provision u/s 55 of the Act of 1960, the Act of 1955 is not attracted. Since there exists no dispute regarding the status and the rate of wages, it was not necessary for a adjudication to arrive at the conclusion or aspect of sum due.
In view of above, petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, no costs.