K.N.Singh, J. - (1.) This petition is directed against the award of Labour Court, Gorakhpui, dated December 9, 1976.
(2.) The petitioner is a public limited company, which publishes two daily newspapers from lucknow, cue in English known "Pioneer" and the other in Hindi known as "Swatantra Bharat". Munna Lal Srivastava, respondent No. 3 was employed as correspondent of Pioneer at Gorakhpur. He was acting as correspondent for some other agencies also. On 18th August, 1973, the Managing Editor of Pioneer, terminated the services of Munna Lal Srivastava respondent-workman with immediate effect. On a dispute being raised on behalf of the workman, the State Government by its notification dated 8th June, 1974, referred the matter of dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court at Gorakhpur, under Section 10(1) of the lndusuial Disputes Act (Central Act). The dispute referred was whether the termination of service of Munna Lal Srivastava by the employer was justified and legal; if not, to what relief the workman was entitled. The employers as well as the respondent-workman contested the proceedings before the Labour Court.
(3.) The case set up by the employers was that the respondent-workman had been working with it as part time reporter for Gorakhpur and he was being paid Rs. 180 per mensem as fixed honorarium for the services rendered by him. In addition to that he was further paid certain amount for meeting local telephone and other charges. Munna Lal Srivastava was not devoting his full time to the employers as he had been working for some other newspapers and news agencies also. He was asked to devote his whole time to the petitioner-company as a full time correspondent. The workman expressed his inability to do so, whereupon his services were terminated with effect from 18-8-1973. The management's action in terminating the services of the respondent-workman was fully justified and he was not entitled to any relief. The management further raised a number of technical objections on the ground that the dispute referred was not an industrial dispute.;