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).
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.
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



