Bombay High Court Refers Question on Working Journalist Maintainability Under MRTU & PULP Act to Division Bench. Conflict of Single Judge Decisions on Whether Working Journalist is 'Employee' Under Section 3(5) MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 Led to Reference.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 5
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The matter arose from writ petitions before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay challenging orders of the Industrial Court and Labour Court in complaints of unfair labour practice filed by working journalists against newspaper establishments. The core dispute concerned maintainability of such complaints under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). In Writ Petition No. 9112 of 2019, working journalist Indrakumar Jain challenged the Industrial Court's order dismissing his complaint against Dainik Bhaskar on the ground that he was not an 'employee' under Section 3(5) of the MRTU & PULP Act. The employer, Dainik Bhaskar, filed Writ Petition No. 12022 of 2019 limited to findings about absence of liability of Indrakumar Jain. In Writ Petition No. 3541 of 2019, Pioneer Book Co. Pvt. Ltd. challenged orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court directing reinstatement of working journalist Devendra Pratap Singh with full back wages and continuity of service, and rejecting the revision application respectively. When the petitions were heard by a Single Judge, arguments centred on whether working journalists could be considered 'employees' under the MRTU & PULP Act. The Single Judge noted conflicting views in earlier single judge decisions of the Bombay High Court and referred the question to a Division Bench. The referred question was whether a complaint of unfair labour practice by a working journalist is maintainable before an Industrial Court on the basis that a working journalist is covered by the definition of 'employee' under Section 3(5) of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. The Division Bench examined the interplay between three statutory provisions: Section 3 of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955; Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; and Section 3(5) of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. Section 3 of the Working Journalists Act makes the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act apply to working journalists as they apply to workmen, subject to modifications specified in sub-section (2). Section 3(5) of the MRTU & PULP Act includes a workman as defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The text provided does not include the final decision of the Division Bench.

Headnote

A) Labour Law - Definition of Employee - Section 3(5) Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Maintainability of Unfair Labour Practice Complaint by Working Journalist - Industrial Court can entertain complaint only if complainant is an 'employee' under Section 3(5), which includes a workman as defined in Section 2(s) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; referral question is whether a working journalist falls within that definition through Section 3 of Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (Paras 1-5).

B) Labour Law - Application of Industrial Disputes Act to Working Journalists - Section 3 Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 - Section 3 provides that provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 apply to working journalists as they apply to workmen, subject to modifications; this statutory interplay is central to determining whether a working journalist is an 'employee' under MRTU & PULP Act (Paras 5-8).

C) Labour Law - Workman Definition - Section 2(s) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Employee under MRTU & PULP Act includes workman as defined in Section 2(s); definition covers manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward and excludes certain categories; working journalist must fit within this definition to access Industrial Court under MRTU & PULP Act (Paras 5, 11).

D) Labour Law - Conflict of Single Judge Decisions - Maintainability Reference - Prior single judge decisions in Bennett Coleman Co. Ltd. v. Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha, Bennett Coleman v. Gurbir Mahavir Singh, Shashikaran R. Shrivastava v. Bennett Coleman & Co., and Mahesh H. Rajput v. United News of India reflected conflict on whether working journalists are 'employees' under MRTU & PULP Act; Single Judge referred question to Division Bench for authoritative determination (Para 4).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether a complaint of unfair labour practice by a working journalist is maintainable before an Industrial Court on the basis that a working journalist is covered by the definition of 'employee' under Section 3(5) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Law Points

  • Working journalist may be an 'employee' under Section 3(5) of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act
  • 1971 only if covered by the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act
  • 1947 as applied through Section 3 of Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act
  • 1955
  • Section 3 of Working Journalists Act makes Industrial Disputes Act apply to working journalists as they apply to workmen
  • subject to modifications
  • Section 3(5) of MRTU & PULP Act includes workman as defined in Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act
  • maintainability of complaint of unfair labour practice before Industrial Court depends on complainant being an 'employee' under MRTU & PULP Act
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2024 LawText (BOM) (02) 222

Writ Petition No. 9112 of 2019; Writ Petition No. 12022 of 2019; Writ Petition No. 3541 of 2019

2024-02-29

Nitin Jamdar, Sandeep V. Marne

2024:BHC-AS:10347-DB

Mr. Sanjay Singhvi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bannet D’Costa and Ms. Jignasha Pandya; Mr. Anand R. Pai with Mr. Pratik Kothari, instructed by Mr. Avinash Patil; Mr. Vijay Vaidya with Mr. Mahendra Agvekar and Ms. Shraddha Chavan; Ms. Jane Cox, instructed by Ms. Karishma Rao

Shri Indrakumar Jain (WP 9112/2019); M/s. Dainik Bhaskar and Shri Manmohan Agarwal (WP 12022/2019); M/s. Pioneer Book Co. Pvt. Ltd. (WP 3541/2019)

M/s. Dainik Bhaskar and Shri Manmohan Agarwal (WP 9112/2019); Shri Indrakumar Jain (WP 12022/2019); Devendra Pratap Singh (WP 3541/2019)

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petitions challenging orders of the Industrial Court and Labour Court in complaints of unfair labour practice filed by working journalists against newspaper establishments under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.

Remedy Sought

Working journalists sought to maintain complaints of unfair labour practice before the Industrial Court under MRTU & PULP Act; newspaper establishments challenged maintainability on the ground that working journalists are not 'employees' under Section 3(5) of MRTU & PULP Act. In WP 3541/2019, Pioneer Book Co. Pvt. Ltd. challenged Labour Court order directing reinstatement of working journalist with full back wages and continuity of service.

Filing Reason

Conflict among Single Judge decisions of the Bombay High Court on whether a working journalist is covered by the definition of 'employee' under Section 3(5) of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971; Single Judge referred the question to a Division Bench.

Previous Decisions

In WP 9112/2019, Industrial Court dismissed the complaint of Indrakumar Jain holding he is not an 'employee' under Section 3(5) of MRTU & PULP Act. In WP 3541/2019, Labour Court directed Pioneer to reinstate Devendra Pratap Singh with full back wages, continuity of service and arrears of wages; Industrial Court rejected the revision application.

Issues

Whether a complaint of unfair labour practice by a working journalist is maintainable before an Industrial Court on the basis that a working journalist is covered by the definition of 'employee' under Section 3(5) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.

Submissions/Arguments

Arguments before the Single Judge centred on whether working journalists could be considered 'employees' under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, with conflicting single judge decisions placed on record.

Judgment Excerpts

These Petitions are placed before us upon the reference made by the learned Single Judge to answer the question of maintainability of a complaint of unfair labour practice by a working journalist before an Industrial Court on the basis that a working journalist is covered by the definition of 'employee' under Section 3(5) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. 6. In the premises, the Registry may place this Petition before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for assigning it to a Division Bench on the question of maintainability of a complaint of unfair labour practice by a working journalist before an Industrial Court on the basis that he is covered by the definition of 'employee' under Section 3(5) of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. The provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), as in force for the time being, shall, subject to the modification specified in sub-section (2), apply to, or in relation to, working journalists as they apply to, or in relation to, workmen within the meaning of that Act.

Procedural History

Complaints of unfair labour practice were filed by working journalists before the Industrial Court/Labour Court under the MRTU & PULP Act. In WP 9112/2019, the Industrial Court dismissed Indrakumar Jain's complaint holding he was not an 'employee' under Section 3(5) of the MRTU & PULP Act. In WP 3541/2019, the Labour Court directed Pioneer to reinstate Devendra Pratap Singh with full back wages, continuity of service and arrears of wages; the Industrial Court rejected the revision application. Writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. Single Judge S.C. Gupte J. noted conflict in earlier single judge decisions and referred the question of maintainability to a Division Bench. The Division Bench reserved judgment on 4 September 2023 and pronounced judgment on 29 February 2024.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Section 3(5)
  • Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955: Section 2(b), Section 2(d), Section 2(f), Section 2(g), Section 3, Section 3(1), Section 4, Section 5, Section 5A, Section 6, Section 7, Section 8, Section 9, Section 10, Section 11, Section 12, Section 13, Section 13A, Section 13AA, Section 14, Section 15, Section 16, Section 17, Section 20
  • Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 2(k), Section 2(s)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Refers Question on Working Journalist Maintainability Under MRTU & PULP Act to Division Bench. Conflict of Single Judge Decisions on Whether Working Journalist is 'Employee' Under Section 3(5) MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 Led to Reference.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Hears Appeal Against Dismissal of Suit Challenging Acquisition of Property Under MHADA Act. Challenge to Acquisition Notices and Notification Under Section 41 of Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority Act, 1976 for Alleged...