LexALL INDIA REPORTER KARAMCHARI SANGH & ORS. versus ALL INDIA REPORTER LIMITED AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
ALL INDIA REPORTER KARAMCHARI SANGH & ORS.
v.
ALL INDIA REPORTER LIMITED AND ORS.
MAY 2, -1988
IE.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.]
Working Journalists and other Newspapers Employees (Condi-
rions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (Act No: 45 of
1955 )-Whether law reports-All India Reporter, Criminal Law Journal,
Labour and Industrial Cases, Taxation Law Reports, Allahabad Law
C Journal, U.P. Law Tribune published by All India Reporter Ltd. are
newspapers as defined-in-And whether employees of All India Repor-
/er Limited engaged in production of publication of these law reports
are entitled to benefits conferred upon employees of newspaper est-
ablishments by the above Act.
D
The question which arose for consideration in this case was
whether the law reports, namely, All India Reporter, Criminal Law
Journal, Labour and Industrial Cases, Taxation Law Reports, Allaha-
bad Law Journal and U.P. Law Tribune, published by the respondent
No. J, All India Reporter Limited, were newspapers as defined in the
-
~
(
k
Working Journalists and other Newspapers Employees (Conditions of
-\ ,
E Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 ('the Act') and
whether the employees of the Isl respondent engaged in the production
or publication of the said law reports were entitled to the benefits con-
ferred upon the employees of the newspaper establishments by the Act.
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 13AA and section
F
1300 of the Act, the Central Government constituted two Tribunals
with Justice Palekar as Member of each of the two Tribunals to make
recommendations in respect of fixing or revising wages of the working
journalists as well as non-working journalists. Justice Palekar made his
recommendations on 12.8.1980. In exercise of its powers under section
12 of the Act, the Central Government accepted a part of the recom-
G
mendations and made an order thereon on 26.12.1980 and then
accepted the remaining part of the recommendations and made another
order thereon on 20. 7.1981.
The Isl respondent had not been served with any individual notice
by the Tribunal before it passed its award. The Isl respondent also had
H not sent a reply to the questionnaire issued by the Tribunal, nor had it
774
-
KARAMCHARI SANGH '· ALL INDIA REPORTER
775
given any evidence before the Tribunal in respect of the matters refer-
red to therein.
The Deputy Labour Commissioner wrote to the Isl respondent
asking it to file its written statements in the matter of non-implementa-
tion of the Palekar Award, as the orders of the Central Government
made under section 12 of the Act were popularly called. The !st respon-
dent submitted its reply inter alia contending that it was not running a
newspaper establishment and its publications were not newspapers and
as such the Palekar Award was not applicable to it. The Deputy Labour
Commissioner again wrote to the 1st respondent saying that the Jst
respondent was liable to implement the order of the Central Govern-
ment made on the recommendations of the Palekar Tribunal since the
Jst respondent was a newspaper establishment. Upon receipt of this
notice, the Jst respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court, ques-
tioning the validity of the notice served on it by the Deputy Labour
Commissioner, calling upon it to implement the orders of the Central
Government-The Palekar Award. The High Court accepted the plea
of the Isl respondent and declared that the law reports were not news-
papers within the meaning of section 2(b) of the Act and that the
demand made by the Deputy Labour Commissioner for compliance
with the orders made by the Central Government on the basis of the
recommendations of Justice Palekar was unsustainable. Aggrieved by
the decisioh of the High Court, the appellants moved this Court for
relief by special leave.
Allowing the appeal, the Court,
A
B
c
D
E
HELD: The Court was concerned with the narrow question
whether the six law reports aforementioned being published by !he Isl
respondent were newspapers within the meaning of the Act and whether
F
the employees engaged in their production or distribution were entitled
to the benefit of the orders made by the Central Government on the
basis of the Palekar Award. [78!F[
In order to be a newspaper, a work must be (i) a printed work) (ii)
a periodical, and (iii) should contain public news or comments on public G
news. Any other class of priExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.