M/S. AWAZ PRAKASHAN PRIVATE LIMITED versus PRAMOD KUMAR PUJARI

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 347 · Decided: 02-04-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, P. VENKATARAMA REDDI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

_,, 
MIS. A WAZ PRAKASHAN PRIVATE LIMITED 
A 
V. 
PRAMOD KUMAR PUJARI 
APRIL 2, 2003 
B 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND P. VENKATARAMA REDD!, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 
Retrenchment-Reporter of a newspaper-Retrenchment of-Challenged C 
as effected without complying with provisions of the Act-Labour Court ordered 
reinstatement-Employer's contention before High Court that Industrial 
Disputes Act had no application to the case rejected-Held, in view of 
provisions of ss. 3 and I 1 of Working Journalists and other Newspaper 
Employees (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, it 
cannot be said that the Board constituted under 1955 Act had the jurisdiction D 
and not the Labour Court-The Board constituted uls 1 I of 1955 Act is not 
a substitute/or Labour Court-The Board is mainly for considering the working 
conditions of the newspaper employees and also to fix rates of wages of 
working journalists from time to time-The provisions contained in the 1955 
Act do not say that all disputes relating to working journalists shall be E 
considered and decided by the Board-The Board can decide only those 
disputes which are re/erred to it-Besides, the employer did not raise any 
objection before Labour Court as to its jurisdiction to decide the dispute-Nor 
was the reference order challenged 011 this ground-High Court rightly 
dismissed employer's writ petition-Working Journalists and Other Newspapers 
(Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, I955-Ss. 3 and F 
IJ. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7458 of2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.1.1999 of the Patna High Court 
in LPA 51/98(R). 
G 
S.K. Sinha for the Appellant. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered. 
347 
H 
348 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2003] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The appellant challenges the Judgment of the Patna High Court in LPA 
No. 5 I of I 999 (R). The appellant was running a printing press and was 
publishing a daily newspaper by name Awaz. The respondent was a Reporter 
of the newspaper at Ranchi. Ac<:ording to the appellant, he closed down the 
printing press and stopped the publication of the said newspaper and, therefore, 
B the services of the respondent were not required and he was retrenched from 
service with effect from 1.7.89. The respondent contended that his 
retrenchment was effected without complying with the provisions contained 
in the industrial Disputes Act, 194 7 and he sought a reference under that Act. 
The appellant did not appear before the Labour Court to contest the 
proceedings. The Labour Court at Ranchi, in Ref. Case No. 12 of 1992, 
C passed an award directing the appellant to reinstate the respondent with back 
wages. According to the appellant, he came to know of the award only on 28. 
9. 1994 and thereafter he filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court. 
Learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition mainly on the ground of 
delay. The appellants contention that the provisions contained in the I. D. Act 
had no application was rejected by the learned Single Judge. Aggrieved by 
D the same, the appellant preferred an LPA and the Division Bench also found 
that the pleas raised by the appellant were not maintainable and the LPA was 
dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 
We heard the appellant's Counsel. The main contention urged by the 
E appellant's Counsel is that respondent was a working Journalist and, therefore, 
the award passed by the Labour Court under the provisions of the I. D. Act 
was without jurisdiction and that provisions contained in the Working 
Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and 
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 are applicable in his case and the Board 
constituted under the provisions of the said Act alone had jurisdiction to deal 
F with the question of retrenchment or removal of the newspaper employees or 
Working Journalists from service. The appellant's Counsel relied on Section 
3 and section 11 of the Act which read as follows:-
"3. Act 14 of 1947 to apply to working journalists-
G 
(1) The provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as in force 
for the time being, shall subject to the modification specified in 
· sub-section (2), apply to, or in relation to working journalists as 
they apply to, or in relation to, workmen within the meaning of 
that Act. 
H 
(2) Section 25F of the aforesaid Act, in its application to working 
A WAZ PRAKASHAN PRIVATE LIMITED v. P.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.