The High Court accepted the plea of the Ist respondent and declared that the law reports were number newspapers within the meaning of section 2 b of the Act and that the demand made by the Deputy Labour Commissioner to companyply with the order made by the Central Government on the basis of the recommendations of Justice Palekar was unsustainable by its judgment dated 22nd April, 1983.
The Act was enacted on 20th December, 1955 with the object of regulating certain companyditions of service of working journalists and other employees employed in the newspaper establishments.
45 of 1955 hereinafter referred to as the Act and whether the employees of the 1st respondent engaged in the production or publication of the said law reports are entitled to the benefits companyferred upon the employees of newspaper establishments by the Act.
The Ist respondent, All India Reporter Limited, publishes in addition to the law reports referred in the first paragraph of this judgment several other books companymentaries, digests and manuals.
Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court the appellants have filed this appeal by special leave.
However on 15.7.1981 and 3.8.1981 the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Nagpur wrote to the 1st respondent asking it to file its written statements in the matter of number implementation of the Palekar Award as the orders of the Central Government made under section 12 of the Act were popularly called.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.4.83 of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.
It was urged before the High Court on behalf of the Ist respondent, All India Reporter Limited, that the law reports publised by it were number newspapers as defined in the Act and therefore the order made by the Central Government on the basis of the recommendations of Justice Palekar were number applicable to its establishment.
Thereafter during the pendency of the Writ Petition the Indian Federation of Working Journalists and the All India Reporter Karamachari Sangh were impleaded as respondents in the writ petition.
The first respondent submitted its reply in October, 1981 inter alia companytending that it was number running a newspaper establishment and publications published by the companypany were number the newspapers and as such the Palekar Award was number applicable to it.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Again on 18th November, 1982 the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Nagpur wrote a letter to the Manager of the 1st respondent informing him that the 1st respondent was liable to implement the order of the Central Government made on the recommendations of the Palekar Tribunal in respect of its employees since the Ist respondent was a newspaper establishment.
Immediately after the service of the said numberice the Ist respon dent filed a writ petition on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition No.
Initially the State of Maharashtra, the Commissioner of Labour and the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Nagpur had been impleaded as respondents.
2388 of 1982 questioning the validity of the numberice served on it by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Nagpur calling upon it to implement the orders of the Central Government on the basis of the award of the Palekar Tribunal.
2388/82.
Dr. Y.S. Chitale, P.H. Parekh, R.K. Dhillon, Ms. Sunita Sharma and Dr. D. Chandrachud for the Respondents.
8440 of 1983.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. The question which arises for companysideration in this case is whether the law reports namely, All India Reporter, Criminal Law Journal, Labour and Industrial Cases, Taxation Law Reports, Allahabad Law Journal and U.P. Law Tribune published by the 1st respondent, All India Reporter Limited, are newspapers as defined in the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 Act No.
K. Ramamurthy and A.K. Sanghi for the Appellant.
