Case: The Management Of Daily Pratap Vs. Them Katibs

4. The appellant is publishing "Pratap" a daily newspaper from Delhi in Urdu language. Unlike English and Hindi, Urdu papers are printed with the help of Katibs and not with the assistance of compositors. Under S. 9 of the Act, the Central Government constituted a Wage Board by notification dated November 12, 1963 for the purpose of fixing or revising the rates of wages in respect of working journalists in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Wage Board made its recommendations. In Schedule I, Section 1 relating to newspapers, the Wage Board had enumerated various personnel. In group 3, the, Reporter, Correspondent,, Artist, Calligraphist, Librarian or Index Assistant are referred to and their functions given. We will have to refer later to the definition of the two expressions "Artist" and "Calligraphist". In paragraph 4.27 of the Report the Wage Board had recommended that the working journalists of different groups employed in different classes of newspapers and news agencies should be paid basic pay per mensem in accordance with the sales given therein. The newspapers were divided into various classes and there is no controversy that the appellant belongs to class V. The pay scales for the type of employees enumerated in group 3 and referred to earlier, working in a newspapers coming under class V was fixed in the scale of Rupees. The Central Government, by and large, accepted the recommendation of the Wage Board subject to certain minor modifications. Accordingly the Central Government under S. 18 of the Act issued a notification No.3 dated October 27, 1967 directing that the recommendations of the Wage Board accepted by the Central Government have to be implemented from the dates mentioned therein. The Katibs in the employ of the appellant claimed that they are Calligraphists as defined by the Wage Board in its recommendations and accepted by the Central Government and as such they are "working journalists" under the Act. They claimed that they should receive the wages according to the scale as recommended by the Wage Board. The appellant was not agreeable to accede to this demand on the ground that the Katibs are not Calligraphists and in consequence they are not working journalists and as such they are not entitled to the higher emoluments provided in the Wage Board Recommendations. Finally, the parties agreed on April, 30, 1968 that the dispute whether the Katibs are working journalists or not, under the definition of Calligraphists as prescribed by the Wage Board will be jointly referred by the parties under S. 10 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. On a joint application by both parties, the Lt. Governor, Delhi, by his order dated September 23, 1968, referred to the Labour Court, Delhi for adjudication the following dispute"Whether the Katibs are working Journalists under the definition of "Calligraphists" as prescribed by the Wage Board and whether they are entitled to rates of wages as prescribed for "Calligraphists" under Government Notification No.3 dated the 27th October 1967 and if so, what directions are necessary in this respect?"Before the Labour Court the Katibs relied on the Wage Board Recommendations and claimed that they were Calligraphists, who had been included as Working Journalists. Their case was that they satisfy the definition of a Calligraphist and as such they were entitled to higher pay scales recommended by the Wage Board and accepted by the Central Government5. This claim was contested by the appellant on the ground that the Katibs were not Calligraphists as their work was only to write in a neat hand whatever was supplied to them by the. The nature of the duties of a Katib and Calligraphist was radically different and the former were not covered by the Wage Board Recommendations and the Central Government notification6. The Labour Courts has recorded the following findings : The Katibs working in the establishment of the appellant calligraph matters. The counsel for the appellant herein conceded that the Katibs were calligraphing the matters but nevertheless they were not calligraphists as defined by the Wage Board. The evidence, both oral and documentary established that the Katibs prepare the lay out, headings, shading and beautification etc. and they are artists as defined by the Wage Board. The Katibs make corrections in the drafts furnished to them by the Editor and substitute their own words and either compress or enlarge the matter, according to availability of space. The corrections and substitutions made by the Katibs as disclosed by the evidence show that the corrections and substitutions were of such a substantial nature that they could be made only by a person who knew the language, the facts and had a grasp of the current affairs. The Katibs therefore do journalistic work. The Katibs satisfied the requirements of the definition of "Calligraphist" contained in the Wage Board Recommendations. As Calligraphists have been included in the definition of "Working Journalist" and as Katibs are Cauligraphists, the latter are entitled to the rates of wages prescribed in the Wage Board Recommendations.

Court's reasoning:
2. In the petition for special leave the appellant had raised three main contentions : (1) The Wage Board exceeding its jurisdiction in including Calligraphists in the definition of Working Journalists and hence its recommendation is of on effect; and in consequence the Government Notification accepting the said recommendation is also void; (2) The Katibs are not Working journalists as defined in S. 2 (f) of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (Act 45 of 1955) as amended (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act); and (3) The finding of the Labour Court that the Katibs are Challigraphists as defined in the Wage Board Recommendations is. But this Court on September 8, 1971 granted special leave in respect of all questions raised in the special leave petition except the question as to whether the calligraphists were properly recommended to be working journalists by the Wage Board3. Therefore, it will be seen that the appellant is not entitled to raise the first question in this appeal that the Wage Board exceeded its jurisdiction in including calligraphists in the definition of working journalists. It further follows that the Notification of the Central Government accepting the recommendations of the Wage Board cannot also be challenged11. We will now considerwhether the Katibs: (a) are Artists; (b) perform journalistic work and (c) also calligraph mattersSo far as calligraphing of matters is concerned, the Labour Court has referred to the evidence of M.Ws. 1, 2, and 5 and also to 13 witnesses, all Katibs, who gave evidence on the side of the Union. They have all given evidence to the effect that after getting the matter from the editorial staff they write in a beautiful manner. In fact, even the case of the appellant is that the Katibs write in a neat and beautiful hand whatever is given to them by the editorial staff. The oral evidence, referred to above, as well as the documentary evidence Exs. W. 15, W. 16 and W. 38 and various other exhibits of a similar nature clearly establish that the Katibs calligraph matters. We do not propose to again refer to the above items of evidence, as we are in entire agreement with the Labour Courts appreciation, as well as its findings based upon that evidence that the Katibs calligraph matters. In fact, it is also seen that the counsel for the appellant had conceded before the Labour Court that the Katibs calligraph matters. But the contention appears to have been that they are neither artists nor do they perform journalistic work which are the two other essential conditions to be satisfied to come under the definition of Calligraphist. That aspect will be dealt with by us later. We are of the opinion that the evidence discussed by the Labour Court clearly shows that one requirement of the definition, namely that Katibs calligraph matters, is established12. Thenthe question is whether the Katibs are. The Wage Board has clearly indicated as to who an Artist is, and that has been referred to by us earlier. We cannot travel beyond the dictionary provided by the Wage Board itself. So far as this aspect is concerned, here again, the Labour Court has referred to the various items of oral and documentary evidence which clearly establish that Katibs prepare for publication drawing, lay outs and other similar embellishments. The witnesses have deposed to the nature of the material given to them as also the completed products, for which the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the Katibs are Artists as defined in the Wage Board Recommendations. As we are of the view that there has been a proper appreciation of the evidence by the Labour Court, we are in entire agreement with the conclusion arrived at by that Court in this regard13. This takes us to the questionwhether the further requirement of the Katibs performing journalistic work is established on the evidence.Neither the expression "journalistic work" nor "journalist" has been defined either in the Act or in the Wage Board Recommendations. The history of the legislation leading upto the Act has been elaborately considered by this Court in Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1959) SCR 12  = (AIR 1958 SC 578 ). The definition of "working journalist" in S. 2 (f) of the Act deals with three aspects; (1) A person whose principal avocation is that of a journalist and who is employed as such in or in relation to any newspaper establishment, is a working journalist; (2) In the expression "working journalist" is also included 11 categories of persons mentioned therein; and (3). (1) and (2) evclude persons mentioned therein from the definition of "working journalist"Normally, when the Wage Board Recommendation has included calligraphist as a Working Journalist and has also specified who is a Calligraphist, it should not be difficult to accept the contention of the respondent that they do journalistic workIt is no doubt true that this Court in The Management of Express Newspapers Ltd. v. B. Somayajulu, (1964) 3 SCR 100  = (AIR 1964 SC 279 ) when dealing with the definition of a working journalist contained in S. 2 (b) of Act I of 1955, which is substantially similar to S. 2 (f) of the Act, has laid down the above two requirements. In the said decision this Court was considering whether a person who claimed to bee correspondent in the moffusil area was a "working journalist" under the inclusive part of the definition in S. 2 (b) of Act I of 1955. At the time when this decision was given there was no definition of "Calligraphist" as now given by the Wage Board; nor was that category in the inclusive part in S. 2 (f). The wage Boards definition merely requires that he should be an Artist "who performs journalistic work and also calligraphs matters." There is no requirement in this definition that he should be a journalist whose principal avocation is that of a journalist. It is matter of considerable doubt whether one of the conditions to be satisfied as laid down by this Court that he must be a person whose principal avocation is that of a journalist when interpreting the inclusive part of the definition as contained in S. 2 (f) of the Act will still apply.If Mr. Desais contention is to be accepted, S. 2 (f) of the Act omitting the matters not relevant for our purpose will have to be read as follows :"Working journalist" means a person whose principal avocation is that of a journalist and who is employed as such in, or in relation to, any newspaper establishment and includes a calligraphist who is an artist who performs journalistic work and also calligraphs matters."It needs no explanation to say that the above reading will not be a very happy one. When once the Wage Board has given the definition of a Calligraphist and included persons coming under that category in the definition of a "working journalist" the only test to be applied will be whether the person concerned satisfies the requirements of the definition given by the Wage Board. We have already referred to the fact that it is no longer open to the appellant to question the jurisdiction of the Wage Board when it included Calligraphists in the definition of "Working Journalist." Once the jurisdiction of the Wage Board is conceded the approach to be made is only to find out whether a person who claims to be a calligraphist satisfies the definition as given by the Wage Board. No doubt the definition of calligraphist will have to be read along with the definition of "Artist" given by the Wage Board. We have already held that the Labour Courts finding that Katibs are artists as defined by the Wage Board is correctIn the case before us there is no controversy that the Katibs are full time employees and there is the relationship of master and servant. If so, it follows that the tests laid down by this Court, in the decision referred to above, are satisfied15. Then the question is whether they perform journalist work. As per the definition of Calligraphist given by the Wage Board it is only necessary that apart from the other functions mentioned therein, the person concerned must perform journalistic work.In this connection Mr. V. S. Desai referred us to the evidence of the various Katibs on the side of the Union to effect that their educational qualification does not go beyond the IXth class. According to him, to be a journalist requires a fairly high degree of education.Normally, it would be very desirable that they have a very high degree of education; but the qualification necessary depends upon the particular type of journalistic work that the employee is called upon to do. In this case M. W. 5, is the editor of the appellant newspaper for about 20 years. He writes editorials. When he gave evidence he was the Chief Editor of the newspaper. Even according to him he has no high qualification in Urdu and he has read Urdu upto VI or VII class. We have referred to this aspect only to show that even such a responsible officer as the Chief Editor of the appellant has only such qualifications. That shows that even though the Katibs have no high qualification they have got knowledge of Urdu in which language the paper is being publishedIt is significant to note that in group 3, the Wage Board has included a Calligraphist as a Working Journalist along with certain other categories who are admittedly working journalists by virtue of the inclusive definition in S. 2 (f) of the Act. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that a person who does the items of work at least analogous to the categories of persons who come within the definition under S. 2 (f) can be considered to be doing journalistic work16. The evidence in this case which has been analysed and discussed by the Labour Court establishes that Katibs make corrections in the drafts furnished to them by the Editor. They even sometimes substitute words, compress and enlarge the matters according to availability of space and some times Edit. This type of work, in our opinion, can certainly be characterised as performance of journalistic work. In particular, we will only refer to the evidence of M. Ws. 3 and 11. W. W. 3 has spoken to the fact that he corrects the spellings and idioms and also substitutes words and increases or decreases matter according to availability of space. He has referred to the original matter received by him as also the final material produced by him. He has spoken to the fact that he had deleted certain facts contained in the matter originally received by him and compressed the same in the new material as no space was available. He has also spoken to having added few lines of his own. He has spoken with reference to the exhibits. When he has referred in detail to the original particulars received from the editorial staff and to the nature of the alterations made by him, there has been no suggestion inn on the side of the appellant that his statements are not borne out by the records. To a similar effect is the evidence of M. W. 11 who has also spoken to the fact that he has either reduced the material on his own responsibility or has to put the matter in small space or increased the matter by making certain additions of his own. Even in respect of certain technical aspects relating to certain matters, the witnesses have deposed to the fact that as there were very serious mistakes in the matters sent to them, they of their own volition corrected as they are well acquainted with the subject with which they were dealing with. In our opinion, all this evidence clearly establishes that in the course of their duties the Katibs perform journalistic work17. From the discussion contained above, it follows that the Katibs are Artists who perform journalistic work and who also calligraph matters. Accordingly, they satisfy the definition of "Calligraphist as per the Wage Board Recommendations and they are "working journalists under Section 2 (f) of the Act. It follows that the Labour Court was right in holding that they are entitled to the higher scale of wages recommended by the Wage Board for Calligraphists and accepted by the Central Government.