- (1.) This is a writ petition filed by United News of India, New Delhi for quashing the award of the Labour Court dated 17.10.1985 vide which Babu Ram workman has been reinstated with continuity of service with full back wages.
(2.) The petitioner has pleaded that respondent Babu Ram was appointed as a Stringer for a specified area for collecting and reporting news items to the U.N.I. Such Stringers are not employees of the U.N.I. and they are given very nominal retainership in the shape of honorarium ranging from Rs. 30/- to Rs. 75/-. Four news agencies i.e. Press Trust of India, United News of India, the Hindustan Samachar and Samachar Bharti have merged under the name of Samachar on 2.4.1976. However, these were again bifurcated in the original agencies on 13.4.1978.
(3.) It is further pleaded that respondent No. 2 has been appointed as a Stringer by the U.N.I. The U.N.I has no disciplinary or any other control over the Stringers and the Stringers were not required to work for news agency for any fixed hours on any fixed days. They were not to get leave sanctioned from the U.N.I and as such there is no relationship of master and servant between U.N.I and the Stringers. There was bifurcation of Samachar into original news agencies on 13.4.1978. Respondent No. 2 was retained on 21.7.1978 and he used to send news from Bhatinda on payment of Rs. 30/- per month. The honorarium of respondent No. 2 was increased from Rs. 30/- to Rs. 50/- which was ultimately increased to Rs. 75/- vide letter dated 28.12.1978. On 16.3.1979, the retainership of respondent No. 2 as Stringer was terminated. Respondent No. 2 served a demand notice under Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short the Act) on 4.5.1981 alleging that his services have been wrongly terminated and ultimately the matter was decided by the Labour Court vide award dated 17.10.1985 holding the termination of respondent No. 2 as invalid and he was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. The said award is illegal and against the provisions of the Act. The respondent No. 2 was not a workman as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. The Labour Court has wrongly held that respondent No. 2 was working as Working Journalist under the Working Journalists and Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous) Act, 1955. The authority reported as 1964 Supreme Court 279 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner as the petitioner was not a Working Journalist and the retainership of respondent No. 2 was terminated in the year 1979 as he has not completed 240 days. Respondent No. 2 was given fresh appointment on 21.7.1978. So, respondent No. 2 cannot have the benefit of Sections 25B and 25F of the Act. Respondent No. 2 has accepted the offer dated 21.7.1978 and acknowledgement Annexure P-2 has been placed on the file. There is no evidence on the file that respondent No. 2 had continuously worked with Samachar after the merger of various agencies into Samachar. The respondent No. 2 was working with various newspapers and earning Rs. 800/- per month. He was not residing at Bhatinda and was residing at Mansa. So, the award dated 17.10.1985 has been challenged.;