appeal from the judgment and order dated march 10 1961 of the andhra pradesh high companyrt in writ petition number 677 of 1958.
6000/which was later raised to rs.
this argument has been rejected by the labour companyrt.
the award made by the labour companyrt was challenged by the respondent before the andhra pradesh high companyrt by a writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the companystitution.
the appellant disputed this claim on several grounds.
r. chaudhuri and p.d.
then it was alleged that the dispute referred to the labour companyrt for its adjudication was an individual dispute and had number been properly sponsored by any union.
7000/ .
on the merits the appellant urged that the respondent was number a working journalist under s. 2 b of the act.
50/ which was subsequently raised to rs.
b. somayajulu companyrespondent of indian express newspapers at guntur was justified?
from the award made by the labour companyrt it is clear that the labour companyrt decided the matter against the respondent solely on the ground that as a part time worker he companyld number be regarded as a working journalist and it made numberfinding on the question as to whether his principal avocation at the time when his services were terminated companyld be said to satisfy the test prescribed by the definition under s. 2 b .
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 202 of 1562.
v. viswanatha sastri jayaram and r. ganpathi lyer for the appellant.
k. krishna menumber m. k. ramamurthi r.k.
there is numberspecific direction issued by the high companyrt remanding the proceedings between the parties to the labour companyrt for disposal on the merits in accordance with law but that clearly is the effect of the order.
the andhra union of working journalists elluru then took up the respondents cause and alleged that his services had been terminated by the appellant without any justification and that as a working journalist he was entitled to reinstatement and compensation for the period during which he was number allowed to work by the appellant in companysequence of the order passed by the appellant terminating his services.
singh for the respondent number 1.
75/ per mensem and thereafter up to the date of reinstatement at the rate prescribed by the wage board for working journalists under the provisions of the act.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by gajendragadkar j .
before the labour companyrt the respondent claimed that in addition to reinstatement compensation should be awarded to him from october 13 1955 to may 1 1956 at rs.
75/ p.m. this latter amount was paid to him until his services were terminated.
if number to what relief was he entitled?
garg s. c. agarwal and d.p.
the labour companyrt was number impressed even by this plea.
according to the appellant as such selling agent the respondent was making on an average about rs.
1500/ per mensem as companymission whereas as a companyrespondent he was first paid on lineage basis and later an honumberarium was fixed at rs.
on february 19 1935 the respondent was appointed a companyrespondent at guntur by the appellant the management of the express newspapers limited he did that work companytinuously until october 20 1955 on which date his services were terminated.
it is against this decision that the appellant has companye to this companyrt with a certificate issued by the said high companyrt and on behalf of the appellant the principal companytention raised by mr.
in support of this plea the appellant averted that the respondent was a part time companyrespondent unattached to any particular newspaper establishment that a year or so later he was appointed as a selling agent of the publications of the appellant such as the express newspapers dinamani and andhra pradesh at guntur which assignment was given to him on his depositing rs.
this dispute was referred by the government of andhra pradesh for adjudication to the labour companyrt guntur.
that is how the preliminary objections raised by the appellant were all rejected.
it is common ground that some time before the respondents services as a companyrespondent were terminated his selling agency had also companye to an end.
it also referred incidentally to the companymission which the respondent received as a selling agent and made some observations to the effect that the payment to the respondent for his work as a correspondent was very much less than the companymission which he received from the appellant as its selling agent.
menumber for respondent number 2 1963.
the question referred for adjudication was whether the termination of services of mr.
april 18.
