Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India considered the scope of the definition of 'working journalist' under Section 2(b) of the Working Journalists Industrial Disputes Act, 1955 (No. 1 of 1955). The dispute arose from the termination of B. Somayajulu, who had been appointed as a correspondent at Guntur by the Management of Express Newspapers Ltd. in 1935 and whose services were terminated in 1955. The Andhra Union of Working Journalists raised an industrial dispute alleging unjustified termination and seeking reinstatement and compensation for the period of unemployment. The Government of Andhra Pradesh referred the dispute to the Labour Court, Guntur, which rejected preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction, validity of reference, and sponsorship, but dismissed the claim solely on the ground that the respondent was a part-time worker and hence not a working journalist. The Labour Court made no finding on whether journalism was the respondent's principal avocation or whether he was employed exclusively as a journalist. On a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the award and held that the respondent was a working journalist under Section 2(b). The appellant, Express Newspapers, appealed to the Supreme Court by certificate, contending that the High Court erred because the respondent's principal avocation was not journalism; he was also a selling agent earning substantial commission, and he was not in exclusive employment. The Supreme Court examined the definition in Section 2(b), which has two parts: the first defines a working journalist as a person whose principal avocation is that of a journalist and who is employed as such in a newspaper establishment or news agency; the second includes a list of specific categories such as editor, leader-writer, news editor, sub-editor, feature-writer, copy-tester, reporter, correspondent, cartoonist, news photographer and proof-reader, but excludes those in managerial or supervisory capacities. The Court held that the inclusion clause did not dispense with the two main conditions of the first part; a person claiming the status must prove that he is a journalist and that journalism is his principal avocation, and that he is employed as such. The specified categories only assist in proving journalist status, not the principal avocation test. The Court also rejected the dictionary or etymological meaning of 'avocation', holding that in the statutory context it means principal occupation. It further held that while full-time employment is normally contemplated, part-time employment is not excluded; a part-time employee who satisfies the principal avocation test cannot be denied the status merely because of part-time nature. The burden of proof was on the respondent to establish that correspondent work was his principal avocation and that he was in exclusive employment of the appellant. Since the Labour Court had decided against him solely on the part-time ground without recording findings on these issues, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remanded the matter to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law. The decision clarified that the definition requires cumulative satisfaction of both conditions, with the onus on the employee, and that part-time status does not automatically disqualify a correspondent from being a working journalist.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Definition of Working Journalist - Section 2(b) Working Journalists Industrial Disputes Act, 1955 - The definition has two cumulative parts: a person must be a journalist and journalism must be his principal avocation, and he must be employed as such in a newspaper establishment; the inclusion of specific categories like correspondent only establishes journalist status, not the two main conditions. The case concerned termination of a Guntur correspondent who was also a selling agent; the Labour Court had denied status solely because part-time, but the Supreme Court held the proper test required proof of principal avocation and employment. Held that the artificial extension does not dispense with the cumulative conditions. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Statutory Interpretation - Meaning of Avocation - Section 2(b) Working Journalists Industrial Disputes Act, 1955 - The word 'avocation' in the context means principal occupation, not dictionary or etymological sense of hobby or subsidiary activity. The court reasoned that the statutory context and purpose of protecting working journalists require focus on the main source of livelihood. Held that dictionary meaning inappropriate. (Paras Not mentioned) C) Labour Law - Part-Time Employment - Section 2(b) Working Journalists Industrial Disputes Act, 1955 - Part-time employees are not excluded from the definition if they satisfy the principal avocation and employment tests; full-time employment is normally contemplated but not mandatory. The Labour Court erred in holding part-time workers outside the Act. Held that part-time correspondent can qualify. (Paras Not mentioned) D) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Section 2(b) Working Journalists Industrial Disputes Act, 1955 - The onus lies on the claimant to prove both that journalism was his principal avocation at the relevant time and that he was in exclusive employment of the newspaper establishment. Since the Labour Court made no finding, the matter had to be remanded. Held that relief depends on claimant establishing status. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether B. Somayajulu was a working journalist under Section 2(b) of the Working Journalists Industrial Disputes Act, 1955, particularly whether part-time employment excludes status and whether the inclusive clause dispenses with the principal avocation test
Final Decision
Supreme Court held that part-time employment does not exclude a person from the definition of working journalist if the principal avocation test is satisfied; however, the onus lay on respondent to prove that journalism was his principal avocation and he was employed as such. Since Labour Court made no finding on this, the matter was remanded to Labour Court for fresh adjudication on merits.
Law Points
- A person is a working journalist if he is both a journalist and journalism is his principal avocation and he is employed as such
- the inclusion clause does not dispense with these conditions
- the word 'avocation' means principal occupation in the statutory context
- part-time employment does not exclude a person from the definition if the principal avocation test is satisfied
- the burden of proving principal avocation and employment lies on the claimant
