LexTHE MANAGEMENT OF EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS LTD. versus B. SOMAYAJULU AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1963 bril 18 ioo SUPREME cobRT REPORTS [I9tl4] voi. THE MANAGEMENT OF EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS LTD. v . .H. so:MAYAJULU AND OTHEKS (P . .H. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOU, and K. C. DAS GUPTA JJ.) Industrial Di;p,,t<-" Working journalist'' -Constr,,ction- Test• prescribed-Part time employee satisfies the test prescribed if, can be excluded from the purview of the section-" Avocation," Meaning of-Working Journalist• Ind·ustrial Disputes Act, 1955 (1of1955), s. 2 (b). The respondent's services as a correspondent at Guntur under the appellant were terminated. The Andhra Union of Working Journalists, Elluru, took up the respondent's cause and alleged that his services had been terminated by the appellant without any justification and that as a working journalist, he was entitled to reinstat~men t and compensation. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Guntur, by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The appellant raised preli- minary objections before the Labour Court, which were all rejected. On the merits, the appellant contended that the avocation of a moffusil correspondent was not the respondent's principal avocation, and so, he could not claim the benefit of the status of a working journalist under s. 2 (b) of the Act. The Labour Court decided the matter against the respondent solely on the ground that as a part time worker he could not be regarded as a working journalist, and it made no finding on the question as to whether his principal avocation at the time when his services were terminated could be said to satisfy the te•t prescribed by the definition under s. 2 (b) of the Act. The award was challenged by the respondent by a writ petition before the High Court of l\ndhra Pradesh. The High \'..ourt held that the respondent was a working journalist under s. 2 (b) of the Act and so it set aside the award. On appeal by certi- ficate the appellant's principal contention in this Court was that the High Court was in error in holding that the respon- dent was a working journalist under s. 2 (b)_of the Act. He«J that whenever an employee working in a newspaper ~stablishment claims the status of a working j ournaliat, •• .. • 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 101 he has to establish first that he is a journalist, and then that journaliim is his principal avocation and .he has been employed as such journalist. In proving the fact that he is a journalist, the employees specified in the latter clause of s. 2 (b) of the Act need not prove anything more than this that they fall under one or the other category specified in the said clause. But that only proves th•ir status as journalin; they have still further to show that their principal avocation is that of a journalist and that they have been employed as such by thP newspaper establishment in question. The object of the artificial extent ion made by the inclu- ding clause is not to dispense with the two main conditions prescribed hy the definition !"fore a journalist can be regarded as a working journalist. Having regard to the CJntext of s. 2 (L) it would be inappropriate to adopt the dictionary or the etyJTlological meaning of the \Vord "avocatirin" in construing s 2 (h) of the Act. Held further that normally employment contemplated by s. 2 (b) would be full time employment but part·time employ- ment is not excluded from s. 2 (b) either. On a fair construc- tion of s. 2 (b), it would be impo<Sib!e to hold that a part time employee who satisfies the test prescribed by s. 2 (b) can be excluded from its purvie\v mert"ly hecause his employ- ment is pa1 t time. In the present case, the onus to prove the issue as to whether the work of a corrr~rondent was his principa' J.voca- tion at the relevant time in the light of the relevant facts. as well as, the issue as to whethei he was in the exclusive employ- ment of the appellant lies on the respondent and it is only if he establishes the fact that he is a working journalist, the question as to determining the relief to which he is entitled may arise. CIVIL Arr1;LLATE jURJSDIC'fION: Civil Appeal No. ~02 of l:!ii2. Appeal from the judgment and order dated March 10, 1961, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 1\77 of 1958. A. V. Viswanntha Sastri, ·Jayaram and R. Ganpathi Iyer, for the appellanL ' ; 196S M•,,.JllMltoj Exptm N1wsp11J>1rs Lid. •• B. s~m•yajul,, 102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964) VOL. 1963 V. K. Krishna Jlenon, M. K. R
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.