Case: All India Reporter Karamchari Sangh &amp; Ors Vs. All India Reporter Limited And Ors

The Act was enacted on December 20, 1955 with the object of regulating certain conditions of service of working journalists and other employees employed in the newspaper establishments. The expression "newspaper" is defined by section 2(b) of the Act as follows :"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."A "newspaper employee" is defined by section 2(c) of the Act as any working journalist, and includes and other person employed to do any work in, or in relation to, any newspaper establishment. "Newspaper establishment" is defined by section 2(d) of the Act as 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 newspapers or for conducting any news agency or syndicate. The expression "working journalist" is defined by section 2(f) of the Act as 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 establishments and includes an editor, a leader-writer, news editor, sub-editor, feature-writer, copytester, reporter, correspondent, cartoonist, news-photographer and proof-reader, but does not include any such person who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or 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, functions mainly of a managerial nature. A "non-journalist newspaper employee" means any person employed to do any work in, or in relation to, any newspaper establishment, but does not include any such person who is a working journalist, or is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity or 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, functions mainly of a managerial nature as stated in section 2(dd) of the Act.Chapter II of the Act deals with certain conditions of service of the working journalists. Those provisions relate to the retrenchment, payment of gratuity, hours of work, leave, fixation or revision of wages, etc. Chapter IIA of the Act deals with similar conditions of service of non-journalist newspaper employees.Section 9 of the Act authorises the Central Government to appoint a Wage Board consisting of two persons representing employers in relation to newspaper establishments; two persons representing working journalists; and three independent persons, one of whom shall be a person who is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court or of the Supreme Court and who shall be appointed by that Government as the Chairman thereof for the purpose of making recommendations with regard to fixation or revision of wages of working journalists. Similarly, section 13C of the Act provides for the constitution of a Wage Board for the purpose of making recommendations regarding the fixation or revision of the rates of wages in respect of non-journalist newspaper employees. Section 13AA which was inserted by Act 6 of 1979 provides for the constitution of a Tribunal for fixing or revising rates of wages in respect of working journalists where the Central Government is of opinion that the Board constituted under section 9 for the purpose of fixing or revising rates of wages in respect of working journalists under the Act has not been able to function effectively. That Tribunal has to consist of a Judge of the High Court or of the Supreme Court. Similarly section 13DD of the Act empowers the Central Government to constitute a Tribunal where it is of opinion that the Board constituted under section 13C of the Act has not been able to function effectively. Section 13AA and section 13DD of the Act came into force with effect from January 31, 1979. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 13AA and section 13DD of the Act the Central Government constituted under two separate notifications two Tribunals on February 9, 1979 with Justice Palekar, a former Judge of the Supreme Court, as the member of each of the two Tribunals to make recommendations in respect of fixing or revising wages of working journalists as well as non-working journalists. Justice Palekar made his recommendations on August 12, 1980. In exercise of its powers under section 12 of the Act the Central Government accepted a part of the recommendations and made an order thereon on December 26, 1980 and accepted the remaining part of the recommendations and made another order thereon on July 20, 1981.The 1st respondent, All India Reporter Limited, was not served with any individual notice by the Tribunal before it passed its award. The 1st respondent also did not send a reply to the questionnaire issued by the Tribunal nor it gave any evidence before the Tribunal in respect of the matters referred to therein. However on July 15, 1981 and August 3, 1981 the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Nagpur wrote to the 1st respondent asking it to file its written statements in the matter of non-implementation of the Palekar Award as the orders of the Central Government made under section 12 of the Act were popularly called. The 1st respondent submitted its reply in October, 1981, inter alia, contending that it was not running a newspaper establishment and publications published by the company were not the newspapers and as such the Palekar Award was not applicable to it. Again on November 18, 1982 the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Nagpur wrote a letter to the Manager of the 1st respondent informing him that the 1st respondent was liable to implement the order of the Central Government made on the recommendations of the Palekar Tribunal in respect of its employees since the 1st respondent was a newspaper establishment. Immediately after the service of the said notice the 1st respondent filed a writ petition on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition No. 2388 of 1982 questioning the validity of the notice served on it by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Nagpur calling upon it to implement the orders of the Central Government on the basis of the award of the Palekar Tribunal. Initially the State of Maharashtra, the Commissioner of Labour and the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Nagpur had been impleaded as respondents. Thereafter during the pendency of the writ petition the Indian Federation of Working Journalists and the All India Reporter Karamchari Sangh were impleaded as respondents in the writ petition.It was urged before the High Court on behalf of 1st respondent, All India Reporter Limited, that the law reports published by it were not newspapers as defined in the Act and therefore the order made by the Central Government on the basis of the recommendations of Justice Palekar were not applicable to its establishment. The High Court accepted the plea of the 1st respondent and declared that the law reports were not newspapers within the meaning of section 2(b) of the Act and that the demand made by the Deputy Labour Commissioner to comply with the order made by the Central Government on the basis of the recommendations of Justice Palekar was unsustainable by its judgment dated April 22, 1983. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court the appellants have filed this appeal by special leave.

Reasoning:
The Act in question is a beneficent legislation which is enacted for the purpose of improving the conditions of service of the employees of the newspaper establishments and hence even if it is possible to have two opinions on the construction of the provisions of the Act the one which advances the object of the Act and is in favour of the employees for whose benefit the Act is passed has to be acceptedWe are of the view that the law reports published by the 1st respondent are newspapers and the employees employed by the 1st respondent in their production or publication of the said law reports should be extended the benefit of the orders passed by the Central Government on the basis of the recommendations made by the Palekar Award.