Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a writ petition filed by The Indian Express Limited challenging the Labour Court’s award that directed payment of arrears to the original applicant, a stringer, under the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955. The original applicant had claimed remuneration for the period from 1979 to 1988, asserting the status of a working journalist. After the initial termination of his part-time correspondent role, the petitioner engaged him as a stringer on a linage basis effective 1980. The Labour Court, in its award dated 28 February 1996, held that an employer-employee relationship existed and that the applicant was entitled to arrears and interest. During the pendency of the writ petition, the original applicant died and his legal heirs were brought on record but did not contest the matter. The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the original applicant could be considered a working journalist under Section 2(f) of the Act, requiring proof that newspaper journalism was his principal avocation, and whether an employer-employee relationship subsisted. The petitioner argued that there was no relationship of employment; the applicant was a stringer on linage basis with no fixed working hours or control. It was further contended that the applicant failed to prove journalism as his principal avocation, as he admitted to engaging in business and politics, and no positive evidence was led. The Labour Court had erroneously shifted the burden of proof to the employer. The court analyzed the evidence: in his examination-in-chief, the applicant made no statement about journalism being his principal avocation, and in cross-examination, he conceded other sources of income. The Supreme Court precedent in Management of Express Newspapers Ltd. clearly held that to be a working journalist, one must first establish that journalism is the principal avocation; the amended definition under Section 2(f) retained this requirement. The applicant’s mere denial of a contrary suggestion did not discharge the burden. On the employer-employee relationship, the court applied the tests laid down in Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Marketing, considering factors like appointment authority, paymaster, control, nature of work, and establishment. The evidence showed no control over the applicant’s work, no fixed working hours, and the nature of the engagement as a stringer on linage basis pointed against a traditional employment tie. The Labour Court’s approach of shifting the burden without any primary material was a misdirection. Consequently, the High Court held that both jurisdictional aspects remained unproven by the applicant, thereby disentitling him to any relief. The award dated 28 February 1996 was set aside, and the application under Section 17(1) of the Act was rejected. The petitioner was permitted to withdraw all amounts deposited during the writ proceedings and receive back any interest paid. The rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Labour Law – Working Journalists – Definition of ‘Working Journalist’ under Section 2(f) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 – To qualify as a working journalist, a person must prove that journalism is his principal avocation, not merely that he falls under specified categories; mere denial of suggestion in cross-examination does not discharge the burden; absence of positive evidence in examination-in-chief and admission of other sources of income disentitle the claim. Held that the claimant failed to prove principal avocation, thus not a working journalist under Section 2(f). (Paras 8-10) B) Labour Law – Employer-Employee Relationship – Tests for Determining Employment Status under the Act – Jurisdiction under Section 17(1) requires establishment of employer-employee relationship; factors include who appoints, pays, controls, and the nature of work; the burden lies on the claimant. Applying tests from Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Marketing, the claimant failed to satisfy control, supervision, or other indicators; Labour Court’s shifting of burden to employer was erroneous. Held that no employer-employee relationship proved, vitiating jurisdiction. (Paras 9-11) C) Civil Procedure – Burden of Proof – In proceedings under Section 17 of the Working Journalists Act, the initial burden lies on the claimant to establish jurisdictional facts of employment and principal avocation; the Labour Court cannot shift the burden to the employer in absence of any primary evidence. Reversal of burden without basic material is a misdirection. (Paras 10-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the original applicant was a working journalist within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, and whether an employer-employee relationship existed between the parties to sustain the Labour Court's award under Section 17(2) of the Act.
Final Decision
The writ petition was allowed. The award dated 28.02.1996 passed by the Labour Court, Akola, was set aside, and the application filed by the original applicant under Section 17(1) of the Act stood rejected. The petitioner was entitled to withdraw all amounts deposited during the writ proceedings and to receive back the interest amount paid in execution. Rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- working journalist
- principal avocation
- burden of proof
- employer-employee relationship
- jurisdictional facts
- linage basis
- Palekar Award
- Labour Court jurisdiction
- Section 2(f) Working Journalists Act
- 1955
