LPA No. 21 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No. 21 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.04.2010 United News of India ....Appellant. Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J.S. Jaidka,, Advocate for respondent No.2. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. In the present intra-court appeal, order impugned is dated 5.12.2007 passed by learned Single Judge whereby dismissing the writ petition challenging the award of the Tribunal. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that Babu Ram respondent No.2 was appointed as Working Journalist by the petitioner and was getting Rs.800/- per month as retaining fee and his services were wrongly LPA No. 21 of 2008 2 terminated in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner has worked for more than 240 days. The petitioner preferred a reference. The Labour Court vide award dated 17.10.1985 directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service with the full back wages by holding that his services could not be terminated without notice or without payment of any compensation. The management preferred writ petition, which too was dismissed by learned Single Judge. 3. In the present appeal, the appellants - management has contended that Babu Ram was assigned job of Stringer for a specified area for collecting and reporting news items to the UNI. Stringers are not employees of the UNI. Stringers get only nominal retainership in the shape of honorarium. UNI has no disciplinary or any other control over the stringers and the stringers are not required to work for news agencies for any fixed hours on any fixed days. The stringers does not get leave sanctioned from the UNI and as such there is no relationship of master and servant between the stringers and the UNI. 4.. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5.. Workman had filed an affidavit before the Labour Court, copy of which was placed before learned Single Judge as Annexure P-10. In paragraph 11 of the aforesaid affidavit, the workman has stated as under: - “11. That I am in journalism profession since about 30 years period and serving INDIAN EXPRESS, THE PILOT, The Times of India, THE TRIBUNE, Daily TEJ, Daily HIND SAMACHAR, Daily PARTAP, Daily, MILAP Urdu, PUNJAB KASARI, VIR PRATAP, HINDI MILAP, DAINIK TRIBUNE LPA No. 21 of 2008 3 – Hindi and AJIT, NAWAN ZAMANA, Punjabi Tribune – Punjabi as correspondents since long. The manmagerment of THE TRIBUNE and PILOT after recognizing my principal avocation as that of a journalist have allowed me retainer allowance as per Palekar Tribunal Award for “Working Journalists” 6. From the contents of para 11, we find that the workman is doing part-time job for so many newspapers. The workman has further stated in paragraph 14 of the affidavit that he was working as stringer “Working Journalist”. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in The Management of Express Newspapers Ltd. Vs. B. Somayajulu and others, AIR 1964 Supreme Court, 279, wherein the Apex Court held that the onus to prove as to whether the workman was working in the exclusive employment of the employer lies on the workman. If working journalists are working for different channels/employers, for that would be inconsistent with the benefit which he is entitled to claim under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 8. From the perusal of the record, we are satisfied that no material/evidence is produced to prove that respondent No.2 was working exclusively for the appellant or was getting any salary. Rather from the material available on record, we are of the opinion that respondent No.2 seems to be a part-time worker getting only monthly honorarium and hence, there was no relationship of master and servant between the appellant and respondent No.2 and hence, respondent No.2 cannot be called as workman. Learned Single Judge ought to have allowed the writ petition. LPA No. 21 of 2008 4 9. In view of the above, present appeal as well as the writ petition are allowed. Judgements impugned are set aside. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 07.04.2010 sk.