THE CHIEF EDITOR, AURANGABAD TIMES & SHAM NAMA EVENING URDU DAILY Vs. JAMIL AHMED MOHD. MUSTAFA ANSARI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is the Chief Editor of "the Aurangabad Times" and the "Evening Daily Sham Nama". The former is published from Aurangabad and the latter one appears to be published from Malegaon, District Nasik. According to Shri Bukhari, it is a very small press having circulation of about 500 of Aurangabad Times and abut 250 of Sham Nama. Both these news papers are in Urdu language having a very small readership. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Judgment and Order of the Industrial Court at Nasik in Revision under Sec. 44 of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 filed by the petitioner against the order of the Labour Court in complaint filed by the Respondent employees granting them reinstatement with full back-wages and continuity of service by its order dated 25.11.1992.

(2.) The Respondent-employees in the above petitions had filed three complaints of unfair labour practise against the Petitioner on the ground that their services were orally terminated with effect from 20.6.1990. According to them, they were in employment of the petitioner as Calligraphers. It was alleged by them that the petitioner had committed an unfair labour practise within the meaning of Items 1 (a), (b), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of the Act. The petitioner contested the complaints by filing his written statements in the complaints. It was contended by the petitioner that the Respondents were not the regular employees of the petitioner but they were employed on contract basis as Calligraphers who were required to work on job basis. It was also contended that there was no employer-employee relationship, and therefore there was no question of the petitioner indulging in any unfair labour practise. It appears from the record that by an order dated 30.4.1991 the Labour Court framed and decided as preliminary issue in respect of employer-employee relationship and held that the Respondent were the employees of the petitioner. If further appears that on the same day by another order the Labour Court had granted an interim order in favour of the employees directing the petitioner to withdraw the unfair labour practise and to deposit 75% of wages in the Court with liberty to the employees to withdraw the same after furnishing surety. The Petitioner was also directed to utilise their services if required but on payment of full wages. It appears that nothing had happened after the said order except the deposit of the amount.

(3.) The Labour Court on the basis of the pleadings and evidence held that the Petitioner had engaged in an unfair labour practise by terminating the services of the respondent-employees in breach of Sec. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court however, absolved the Petitioner of the charge of other unfair labour practices. The Labour Court observed that in the affidavit filed by the Respondent-employees it was stated that they were in regular employment of the Petitioner and that their services were terminated in breach of Sec. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, as they were not offered retrenchment compensation and wages in lieu of one month's notices or one month's notice. The Labour Court therefore, finally directed the petitioner to reinstate the employees with full back-wages and continuity of service.