S.S. Nijjar, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the award dated 11,9.2000 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Labour Court).
(2.) THE petitioner, The Hind Samachar Limited, publishes newspapers from various places including the State of Punjab, Ambala and Delhi, The petitioner has been categorised as Group II! newspaper establishment in the Report of the Wage Boards for Working Journalists and Non -journalist Newspaper Employees (hereinafter referred to as "the Bachawat Wage Board") for working journalists and non -journalists employees. The Bachawat Wage Board has recommended the pay scale of Rs. 2485 -115 -3060 -130 -3710 -145 -4435 -160 -5235. Under Section 17.2 of the Award, it has been provided that a part -time correspondent shall be paid not less than 1/3 of the basic pay of full time correspondent in addition to payment on column basis. Respondent No.1 Rajinder Kumar Gupta was enrolled as an Advocate in the year 1974. In his application for enrolment, he had given the particulars of working as a Journalist. He was given permission by the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana for working as a Journalist. Prior to his enrolment as an advocate, he was working as a Press Reporter of a newspaper known as Daily Pradeep, published from Jalandhar. On 25.5.1987, respondent No. 1 made an application to the petitioner for appointment as a legal correspondent. In the application he had stated his qualification to be MA, and LL.B. It is also stated that he is practising as a lawyer at the High Court for the last 13 years. He further stated that he has worked as a legal correspondent of the Indian Express from the years 1977 -85. It is further stated that since 1985, he is working in the same capacity for the Tribune Chandigarh. He further stated that he had already worked for the petitioner as a legal correspondent for more than 5 years. This application was accepted by the petitioner. By order dated 2.6,1987, respondent No. 1 was appointed as a part -time legal correspondent on the terms and conditions mentioned in the letter of appointment. These were as follows : - "We are in receipt of your application dated 25th May, 1987 regarding the appointment as a part time Legal Correspondent at Chandigarh. We hereby appoint you as our Part Time Legal Correspondent at Chandigarh with effect from 1st June, 1987 for the coverage of High Court News -items as per following terms and conditions : - 1. That you shall be covering the High Court news items daily. 2. That all the news items sent by you will be for all the newspapers of our Group. 3. That you will be paid a sum of Rs. 350/ - (Rupees Three Hundred Fifty only) per month as retainer -ship with effect from 1st June, 1987.
(3.) THAT no other allowance or expenses whatsoever will be paid to you except your retainership allowance of Rs. 350/ -per month. In case the above terms are acceptable to you, please return to us the duplicate copy of this letter duly signed by you in token of your acceptance, for our records." 4. Respondent No. 1 worked with the petitioner as Part Time Legal Correspondent till 15.10.1994 when his services were terminated with the following observations : - "Please note that it has been decided to terminate the arrangement of legal consultancy with effect from 15th October, 1994. Therefore, henceforth you are no longer retainer with us." In response to the aforesaid letter dated 15.10.1994, respondent No. 1 sent a legal notice dated nil in the month of November, 1994. In this notice, he claimed that his services had been illegally terminated. He further staled that at the time of his appointment, the renumeration was fixed at Rs. 350/ - with promise to suitably revise the same alongwith other employees. His pay was raised to Rs. 400/ - soon after the appointment. He continued to represent for refixation in the light of recommendation of Bachawat Wage Board, on pay scale for Journalists and non -Journalists. It is stated that "Now that the Supreme Court has finally rejected the plea of the Newspaper Managements against the award, your are required to pay me arrears of wages in the light of the award from the year 1988 onwards as per the specific recommendation of Bachawat Panel in regard to the part time correspondents." Number of other issues have been raised in the legal notice which are not relevant for the decision of the present writ petition. It is further stated that the representations made by the respondent No. 1 were ignored. His services were terminated in order to prevent respondent No. 1 from pressing his claim for payment.;