[MRTU & PULP Act] Working Journalists' Status Distinct From Regular Workmen Due To Special Privileges, Can't Be Considered Employees: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court on Monday held that working journalists are not employees under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) and therefore, cannot file complaints of unfair labor practices under the said Act.

A division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Sandeep Marne delivered the judgment on a reference by a Single Judge in three writ petitions filed by working journalists and newspapers challenging Industrial Court orders on complaints.

“The working journalists under Section 3 of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 are not included in the definition of "employee" under Section 3(5) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. Thus, a complaint of unfair labour practice filed by a working journalist under the MRTU and PULP Act is not maintainable”, the court held.

The court said that working journalists have various safeguards under the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (Working Journalists Act) and can avail the machinery for dispute resolution under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act).

Two of the writ petitions are cross petitions between Dainik Bhaskar and a working journalist. The Industrial Court held that he was not an employee and dismissed his complaint. The third petition is filed by a newspaper establishment Pioneer Book challenging the Industrial Court order upholding a Labour Court order in favour of a working journalist.

The Single Judge opined that a conflict existed in previous Bombay HC judgments on the maintainability of working journalists' complaints and referred the issue to a larger bench.

The question before the court was whether working journalists, who are covered by the special provisions of the Working Journalists Act can be considered employees under the MRTU & PULP Act which defines an employee as a workman as defined in Section 2(s) of the ID Act.

The working journalists contended that they are entitled to the benefits of both the Working Journalists Act and the MRTU & PULP Act, as the former Act incorporates the provisions of the ID Act for working journalists as they apply to workmen, and the latter Act adopts the same definition of workman. They argued that the Working Journalists Act effectively amended the ID Act in 1955 to include working journalists in the definition of workman, and any subsequent amendments to the ID Act apply to working journalists as well.

The newspaper establishments contended that the Working Journalists Act is a complete code for working journalists and section 3 creates a legal fiction to apply the provisions of the ID Act to them. They said the legal fiction cannot be extended to the MRTP and PULP Act, which is beyond its intended purpose and scope. The Working Journalists Act does not change the status of working journalists as anything other than working journalists, they argued.

The court agreed with the newspaper establishments and held that the Working Journalists Act is a package deal for working journalists with special rights and privileges. The legal fiction created by Section 3 of the Working Journalists Act is limited to the extent that disputes related to the service of working journalists have to be settled according to the provisions of the ID Act, the court said.

“the legal fiction of treating working journalists as workmen under Section 2(s) of the ID Act cannot be extended far beyond what is contemplated merely because extending such fiction would confer additional rights on working journalists of being treated as employee under the MRTU & PULP Act.”

The court noted that under the MRTU and PULP Act, the Maharashtra legislature specifically included sales promotion employees. If the working journalists were to be included in the definition of employee under the MRTU & PULP Act, there would have been a specific reference to the same, which is missing, the court observed.

The Working Journalists Act is enacted to confer a special status on working journalists, the court said, adding that these two Acts make a complete Code for working journalists.

The court observed that the Working Journalists Act does not amend the ID Act, but only incorporates some of its provisions for the benefit of working journalists. It said that the Working Journalists Act does not confer the status of workman on working journalists, but only treats them as such for certain purposes.

The court, therefore, concluded that working journalists are not employees under Section 3(5) of the MRTU & PULP Act, and directed the petitions to be placed before the Single Judge for passing appropriate orders.

Case no. – Writ Petition No. 9112 of 2019

Case Title – Shri Indrakumar Jain v. M/s. Dainik Bhaskar and Ors.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment