Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11
PETITIONER:
ALL INDIA REPORTER KARAMCHARI SANGH & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
ALL INDIA REPORTER LIMITED AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT02/05/1988
BENCH:
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
BENCH:
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
OJHA, N.D. (J)
CITATION:
1988 AIR 1325 1988 SCR (3) 774
1988 SCC Supl. 472 JT 1988 (2) 244
1988 SCALE (1)990
ACT:
Working Journalists and other Newspapers Employees
(Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,
1955 (Act No. 45 of 1955)-Whether law reports-All India
Reporter, Criminal Law Journal, Labour and Industrial Cases,
Taxation Law Reports, Allahabad Law Journal, U.P. Law
Tribune published by All India Reporter Ltd. are newspapers
as defined-in-And whether employees of All India Reporter
Limited engaged in production of publication of these law
reports are entitled to benefits conferred upon employees of
newspaper establishments by the above Act.
6
The question which arose for consideration in this case
was 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 respondent No. 1, All India Reporter
Limited, were newspapers as defined in the Working
Journalists and other Newspapers Employees (Conditions of
Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (’the Act’)
and whether the employees of the 1st respondent engaged in
the production or publication of the said law reports were
entitled to the benefits conferred upon the employees of the
newspaper establishments by the Act.
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 13AA and
section 13DD of the Act, the Central Government constituted
two Tribunals with Justice Palekar as Member of each of the
two Tribunals to make recommendations in respect of fixing
or revising wages of the working journalists as well as non-
working journalists. Justice Palekar made his
recommendations on 12.8.1980. In exercise of its powers
under section 12 of the Act, the Central Government accepted
a part of the recommendations and made an order thereon on
26.12.1980 and then accepted the remaining part of the
recommendations and made another order thereon on 20.7.1981.
The 1st respondent had not been served with any
individual notice by the Tribunal before it passed its
award. The 1st respondent also had not sent a reply to the
questionnaire issued by the Tribunal, nor had it
775
given any evidence before the Tribunal in respect of the
matters referred to therein.
The Deputy Labour Commissioner wrote to the 1st
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11
respondent asking it to file its written statements in the
matter of non-implementation of the Palekar Award, as the
orders of the Central Government made under section 12 of
the Act were popularly called. The 1st respondent submitted
its reply inter alia contending that it was not running a
newspaper establishment and its publications were not
newspapers and as such the Palekar Award was not applicable
to it. The Deputy Labour Commissioner again wrote to the 1st
respondent saying that the 1st respondent was liable to
implement the order of the Central Government made on the
recommendations of the Palekar Tribunal since the 1st
respondent was a newspaper establishment. Upon receipt of
this notice, the 1st respondent filed a writ petition in the
High Court, questioning the validity of the notice served on
it by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, calling upon it to
implement the orders of the Central Government-The Palekar
Award. The High Court accepted the plea of the 1st
respondent and declared that the law reports were not
newspapers within the meaning of section 2(b) of the Act and
that the demand made by the Deputy Labour Commissioner for
compliance with the orders made by the Central Government on
the basis of the recommendations of Justice Palekar was
unsustainable. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court,
the appellants moved this Court for relief by special leave.
Allowing the appeal, the Court,
HEADNOTE:
HELD: The Court was concerned with the narrow question
whether the six law reports aforementioned being published
by the 1st respondent were newspapers within the meaning of
the Act and whether the employees engaged in their
production or distribution were entitled to the benefit of
the orders made by the Central Government on the basis of
the Palekar Award. [781F]
In order to be a newspaper, a work must be (i) a
printed work, (ii) a periodical, and (iii) should contain
public news or comments on public news. Any other class of
printed periodical work as may, from time to time, be
notified in this behalf by the Central Government in the
official Gazette, may also be a newspaper. There was no
dispute in this case that the law reports are printed works
and that they are periodicals. The only question which
remained to be considered was whether they contained public
news or comments on public news, Newspapers and
776
books are no doubt shown as separate items in Entry 39 of
List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, but
the distinction between them sometimes becomes very thin or
totally vanishes. [781G-H;782A-B]
The law reports being published by the 1st respondent
are reports of recent decisions of the Supreme Court of
India and the High Courts in India, which are supplied to it
by its agents appointed at New Delhi and other places where
the High Courts are situated. These decisions are of public
importance. The law declared by the Supreme Court is binding
on all the Courts in India, as provided by Article 141 of
the Constitution. The decisions of the Supreme Court-a court
of record-constitute a source of law as they are judicial
precedents of the highest court of the land. They are
binding on all the courts throughout India. The decisions of
every High Court being judicial precedents are binding on
all the Courts situated in the territory under the
jurisdiction of the High Court. The decisions of the Supreme
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11
Court and High Courts are almost as important as statutes,
rules and regulations passed by the competent legislatures
and other bodies. The decisions of the superior courts,
while they settle the disputes between the parties to the
proceedings, are sources of law in so far as all others are
concerned. As soon as a decision is rendered, the members of
the public would be interested in knowing it; lawyers and
others connected with the courts and judicial proceedings
are interested in knowing the contents and effects of the
decisions. The 1st respondent and other publishers of law
reports, in the interests of their own business, vie with
each other to publish the judgments of the Supreme Court or
the High Courts as early as possible in their law reports,
published periodically-weekly, fortnightly or monthly. They
believe the faster the decisions are published in their
reports, the larger will be the number of subscribers. The
contents of these law reports constitute news in so far as
the subscribers and readers of these reports are concerned.
By reading these law reports, they come to know of the
latest legal position prevailing in the country on any
question decided in the decisions reported in the said
reports. Hence, it was difficult to agree with the
submission of the 1st respondent that the law reports did
not carry any news and that the public was not interested in
them. Any decision published in the law reports of the 1st
respondent contains information about the recent events
which have taken place in the Supreme Court or the High
Courts which are public bodies and these are matters in
which public is interested. The Court found it also
difficult to agree with the submission of the 1st respondent
that since the law reports are going to be preserved by the
lawyers as reference books after getting them rebound
subsequently, they should be treated as books. The decisions
contained in these law reports may
777
cease to be items of news after some time, but when they are
received by the subscribers, they do possess the character
of works containing news. [782G-H; 783A-H]
Strong reliance was placed by the 1st respondent on the
decision of the High Court of Orissa in P.S.V. Iyer v.
Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa, AIR 1960 Orissa 221, but
the Court found it difficult to agree with that decision
since the High Court had omitted to take into consideration
that information about recent decisions of the Courts of
record could be news in which the public was interested. The
fact that a law book could be used as a reference book at a
later stage was not sufficient to hold that the law report
did not contain public news when it was received by the
subscriber. [784A, G-H]
It is sufficient that the expression ’newspaper’ as
defined in the Act includes not merely ’public news’ but
also ’comments on public news’. Every law report contains
the editorial note and also comments on some of the recent
decisions. The law Reports also contain newly enacted Acts,
Rules and Regulations, book reviews and advertisements
relating to law books, handwriting and finger print experts,
etc., speeches made at conferences in which the legal
fraternity is interested, etc. Though the publication of
these items by itself may not occupy a substantial part of a
law report to make it a newspaper, the publication of the
recent judgments itself is sufficient to make a law report a
newspaper which may after some time cease to be a newspaper
and become a book of reference. [786G-H; 787A-B]
The Act is a beneficient legislation which is enacted
for improving the conditions of service of the employees of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11
the newspaper establishments, and even if it is possible to
have two opinions on the construction of the provisions of
the Act, the one which advances the object of the Act and is
in favour of the employees for whose benefit the Act is
passed has to be accepted. [787B-C]
The Law Reports published by the 1st respondent are
newspapers and the employees employed by the 1st respondent
in their production or publication should be extended the
benefit of the orders passed by the Central Government on
the basis of the recommendations made by the Palekar
Award.[787C-D]
The judgment of the High Court was set aside and the
writ petition filed by the 1st respondent before the High
Court was dismissed. [787D]
778
P.S.V. Iyer v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa, AIR
1960 Orissa 221; T.V. Ramanath & Anr. v. Union of India &
Ors., [1975] Labour and Industrial Cases 488; L.D. Jain v.
General Manager, Government of India Press and Others, ILR
1967 Punjab and Haryana 193; Ex Parte Stillwell, [1923] 29
V.L.R. 413 and Commissioner of Sales Tax v. M/s. Express
Printing Press, AIR 1983 Bombay 191, referred to.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8440 of
1983.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.4.83 of the High
Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2388/82.
M.K. Ramamurthy and A.K. Sanghi for the Appellant.
Dr. Y.S. Chitale, P.H. Parekh, R.K. Dhillon, Ms. Sunita
Sharma and Dr. D. Chandrachud for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VENKATARAMIAH, J. The question which arises for
consideration 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. 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 conferred
upon the employees of newspaper establishments by the Act.
The Act was enacted on 20th December, 1955 with the
object of regulating certain conditions of service of
working journalists and other employees employed in the
newspaper establishments. The expression "newspaper" is
defined by section 2(b) of the Act as follows:
" "Newspaper" means any printed periodical work
containing public news or comments on public news
and includes such other class of printed
periodical work as may, from time to time, be
notified in this behalf by the Central Government
in the Official Gazette."
779
A "newspaper employee" is defined by section 2(c) of
the Act as any working journalist, and includes any other
person employed to do any work in, or in relation to, any
newspaper establishment. "Newspaper establishment" is
defined by section 2(d) of the Act as an establishment under
the control of any person or body of persons, whether
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11
incorporated or not, for the production or publication of
one or more newspapers or for conducting any news agency or
syndicate. The expression "working journalist" is defined by
section 2(f) of the Act as a person whose principal
avocation is that of a journalist and who is employed as
such, either whole time or part-time, in or in relation to,
one or more newspaper establishments and includes an editor,
a leader-writer, news editor, sub-editor, feature-writer,
copy-tester, reporter, correspondent, cartoonist, news-
photographer and proof-reader, but does not include any such
person who is employed mainly in a managerial or
administrative capacity, or being employed in a supervisory
capacity, performs, either by the nature of the duties
attached to his office or by reason of the powers vested in
him, functions mainly of a managerial nature. A "non-
journalist newspaper employee" means any person employed to
do any work in, or in relation to, any newspaper
establishment, but does not include any such person who is a
working journalist, or is employed mainly in a managerial or
administrative capacity or being employed in a supervisory
capacity, performs, either by the nature of the duties
attached to his office or by reason of the powers vested in
him, functions mainly of a managerial nature as stated in
section 2(dd) of the Act.
Chapter II of the Act deals with certain conditions of
service of the working journalists. Those provisions relate
to the retrenchment, payment of gratuity, hours of work,
leave, fixation or revision of wages etc. Chapter IIA of the
Act deals with similar conditions of service of non-
journalist newspaper employees.
Section 9 of the Act authorises the Central Government
to appoint a Wage Board consisting of two persons
representing employers in relation to newspaper
establishments; two persons representing working
journalists; and three independent persons, one of whom
shall be a person who is, or has been, a Judge of a High
Court or of the Supreme Court and who shall be appointed by
that Government as the Chairman thereof for the purpose of
making recommendations with regard to fixation or revision
of wages of working journalists. Similarly, section 13C of
the Act provides for the constitution of a Wage Board for
the purpose of making recommendations regarding the fixation
or revision of the rates of wages in respect of non-
journalist news-
780
paper employees. Section 13AA which was inserted by Act 6 of
1979 provides for the constitution of a Tribunal for fixing
or revising rates of wages in respect of working journalists
where the Central Government is of opinion that the Board
constituted under section 9 for the purpose of fixing or
revising rates of wages in respect of working journalists
under the Act has not been able to function effectively.
That Tribunal has to consist of a Judge of the High Court or
of the Supreme Court. Similarly section 13DD of the Act
empowers the Central Government to constitute a Tribunal
where it is of opinion that the Board constituted under
section 13C of the Act has not been able to function
effectively. Section 13AA and section 13DD of the Act came
into force with effect from January 31, 1979. In exercise of
the powers conferred by section 13AA and section 13DD of the
Act the Central Government constituted under two separate
notifications two Tribunals on 9.2.1979 with Justice
Palekar, a former Judge of the Supreme Court, as the member
of each of the two Tribunals to make recommendations in
respect of fixing or revising wages of working journalists
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11
as well as non-working journalists. Justice Palekar made his
recommendations on 12.8.1980. In exercise of its powers
under section 12 of the Act the Central Government accepted
a part of the recommendations and made an order thereon on
26.12.1980 and accepted the remaining part of the
recommendations and made another order thereon on 20.7.1981.
The 1st respondent, All India Reporter Limited, was not
served with any individual notice by the Tribunal before it
passed its award. The 1st respondent also did not send a
reply to the questionnaire issued by the Tribunal nor it
gave any evidence before the Tribunal in respect of the
matters referred to therein. 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 non-implementation of the Palekar Award as the
orders of the Central Government made under section 12 of
the Act were popularly called. The first respondent
submitted its reply in October, 1981 inter alia contending
that it was not running a newspaper establishment and
publications published by the company were not the
newspapers and as such the Palekar Award was not applicable
to it. 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
notice the Ist respon-
781
dent filed a writ petition on the file of the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition No. 2388
of 1982 questioning the validity of the notice 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. Initially the State of
Maharashtra, the Commissioner of Labour and the Deputy
Labour Commissioner, Nagpur had been impleaded as
respondents. 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.
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 not 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 not
applicable to its establishment. The High Court accepted the
plea of the Ist respondent and declared that the law reports
were not newspapers within the meaning of section 2(b) of
the Act and that the demand made by the Deputy Labour
Commissioner to comply 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. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court the
appellants have filed this appeal by special leave.
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
commentaries, digests and manuals. But we are concerned in
this case with the narrow question whether the six law
reports which are being published by the Ist respondent are
newspapers within the meaning of the Act and whether the
employees engaged in their production or distribution are
entitled to the benefit of the orders made by the Central
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11
Government on the basis of the recommendations of the
Palekar Tribunal.
The definition of the expression "newspaper" has
already been set out above. In order to be a newspaper a
work must be a (i) printed work; (ii) a periodical; and
(iii) should contain public news or comments on public news.
Any other class of printed periodical work as may, from time
to time, be notified in this behalf by the Central
Government in the Official Gazette may also be a newspaper.
There is no dispute in the present case that the law reports
are printed works and that they are periodicals. The only
question which remains to be
782
considered is whether they contain public news or comments
on public news.
Entry 39 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the
Constitution reads thus: "Newspapers, books and printing
presses." Newspapers and books are no doubt shown as
separate items but the distinction between them sometimes
becomes very thin or totally vanishes. In this connection it
is necessary to reproduce a passage from the Report of the
Royal Commission on the Press (1947-49) appointed by the
British Government and presided over by Sir William David
Ross. It reads thus:
"The newspaper and periodical Press of Great
Britain consists of over 4,000 publications
ranging from newspapers famous throughout the
world to the journals of obscure societies. Its
limits are ill-defined, for there is no definition
of either ‘newspaper’ or ‘periodical’ which
enables each to be infallibly distinguished from
the other and from publications which are properly
speaking neither. The term ‘newspaper’ is usually
applied (except so far as concerns the important
class of trade newspapers) to publications devoted
mainly to recording current events, and
‘periodicals’ to magazines, reviews, and journals
which, in so far as they are concerned with
current events at all, are concerned to comment
rather than to report; but newspapers merge into
advertising sheets, periodicals into books and
pamphlets, and both into one another; ....."
The expression "news" is not defined in the Act.
Several definitions of the expression "news" collected from
the different dictionaries and digests have been cited
before us. It is enough if we refer to the meaning of the
word "news" given in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary
for purposes of this case. It says that "news" means
tidings, new information of recent events; new occurrences
as a subject of report or talk. The law reports which are
being published by the Ist respondent are reports of recent
decisions of the Supreme Court of India and of the High
Courts in India which are supplied to it by its agents
appointed at New Delhi and other places where High Courts
are situated. It cannot be disputed that these decisions are
of public importance. Article 141 of the Constitution
provides that the law declared by Supreme Court shall be
binding on all courts within the territory of India. Even
apart from Article 141 of the Constitution the decisions of
the Supreme Court, which is a court of record, constitute a
783
source of law as they are the judicial precedents of the
highest court of the land. They are binding on all the
courts throughout India. Similarly the decisions of every
High Court being judicial precedents are binding on all
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11
courts situated in the territory over which the High Court
exercises jurisdiction. Those decisions also carry
persuasive value before courts which are not situated within
its territory. The decisions of the Supreme Court and of the
High Courts are almost as important as statutes, rules and
regulations passed by the competent legislatures and other
bodies since they affect the public generally. It is well-
known that the decisions of the superior courts while they
settle the disputes between the parties to the proceedings
in which they are given they are the sources of law in so
far as all others are concerned. As soon as a decision is
rendered the members of the public would be interested in
knowing it. At any rate lawyers and others connected with
courts and judicial proceedings who constitute a substantial
section of the public are interested in knowing the contents
and the effect of the decisions. The Ist respondent, All
India Reporter Limited, and other publishers of law reports
in the interests of their own business vie with each other
to publish the judgments of the Supreme Court or of the High
Courts as early as possible in their law reports which are
published periodically either weekly, fortnightly or
monthly. They believe that faster the decisions are
published in their reports, larger will be the number of
subscribers. Infact we have a law report which is published
from Delhi which publishes the judgments rendered by the
Supreme Court within a day or two. The contents of these law
reports constitute news insofar as the subscribers and the
readers of these reports are concerned. It is by reading
these law reports they come to know of the latest legal
position prevailing in the country on any question decided
in the decisions reported in the said reports. Hence it is
difficult to agree with the submission made on behalf of the
Ist respondent that the law reports do not carry any news
and that the public is not interested in them. We are of the
view that any decision published in the law reports of the
Ist respondent contain information about the recent events
which have taken place in the Supreme Court or in the High
Courts which are public bodies and these are matters in
which the public is interested. We find it also difficult to
agree with the submission made on behalf of the Ist
respondent that since the law reports are going to be
preserved by the lawyers as reference books after getting
them rebound subsequently they should be treated as books.
It may be that the decisions contained in these law reports
may cease to be items of news after some time but when they
are received by the subscribers they do possess the
character of works containing news.
784
Strong reliance was placed on behalf of the Ist
respondent on the decision of the High Court of Orissa in
P.S.V. Iyer v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa, AIR 1960
Orissa 221 in which the question that arose for
consideration was whether a law journal-Cuttack Law Times,
which was a non-official monthly journal containing the
decisions of the Orissa High Court, the Orissa Board of
Revenue and also of the Supreme Court was a newspaper and if
it was a newspaper whether it was competent for the
Legislature of the State of Orissa to levy sales tax on the
sale of the said journal. The said question arose in that
form in view of the language of Entry 54 of List II of the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution which read as follows:
"54. Taxes on the sale or purchase of goods other
than newspapers, subject to Entry 92-A of List I."
The language of Entry 92 of List I of the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution which conferred on Parliament
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11
alone the power to tax sale or purchase of newspapers was in
the following terms:
"92. Tax on the sale or purchase of newspapers and
on advertisements published therein."
After referring to the definition of the expression
‘newspaper’ in the Press and Registration of Books Act,
1867, the Indian Post Offices Act, 1898, the Parliamentary
Proceedings (Protection of Publication) Act, 1956, the
Delivery of Books and Newspapers Act, 1956 the Newspaper
(Price and Page) Act, 1956, etc. the High Court of Orissa
held that the Cuttack Law Times was not a newspaper because
according to it the necessary pre-requisite of a periodical
in order to make it a newspaper was that it should contain
mainly publicnews or comments on public news and that books
containing authoritative reports for future reference could,
by no means, be said to contain news so as to become
newspaper. Accordingly, the High Court of Orissa held that
the sale of Cuttack Law Times, which according to it was not
a newspaper, could be taxed by the State Legislature under
Entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the
Constitution of India. We find it difficult to agree with
the above decision since the High Court of Orissa omitted to
take into consideration that information about recent
decisions of courts of record could be news in which the
public was interested. The fact that a law report could be
used as a reference book at later stage was not sufficient
to hold that the law report did not contain public news when
it was received by the subscriber.
785
The High Court of Madras declined to follow the above
decision of the Orissa High Court in its decision in T.V.
Ramnath and Another v. Union of India and Others, [1975]
Labour and Industrial Cases 488 in which the Madras Law
Journal, a law report published from Madras, was held to be
a newspaper and the establishment in which the said law
report was being published was a newspaper establishment
which attracted the provisions of that Act. We agree with
the following observations made in the said decision by
Ismail, J. (as he then was):
"Similarly, the publications of the petitioner in
the second writ petition can be said to contain
‘public news’ or ‘comments on public news’ since
it contains reports of the judgments of the Courts
as well as comments on such judgments. Even
though, the same may be primarily intended for
that section of the public which is concerned with
law and the administration of law, in the present
days, nothing prevents any educated individual
taking interest in such publications and the news
themselves being of interest to such persons.
Therefore I am clearly of the opinion that the
expression ‘public news’ is of sufficiently wide
amplitude to cover the publications of both the
petitioners in question."
It is seen that the editor of the law report containing
the above decision has appended an editorial comment on this
stating that this decision is wrong and that the Orissa High
Court’s decision was right. Justice A.N. Grover, who later
became a Judge of the Supreme Court of India and the
Chairman of the Press Council, as a Judge of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court held in L.D. Jain v. General Manager,
Government of India Press and Others, I.L.R. 1967 Punjab and
Haryana 193 that the Gazette of India which was the official
publication of all kinds of news and information was a
newspaper within the meaning of section 2(b) of the Working
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11
Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1955 and that it was not essential for a
newspaper to conform strictly to the usual pattern of a
daily or weekly or monthly newspaper or a magazine
containing news which members of the public ordinarily read
in order to get reports of recent events, comments on them
etc. In doing so, he distinguished the decision of the
Australian Court in Ex Parte Stillwell, [1923] 29 V.L.R. 413
in which the Bradshaw’s Guide was held to be a book of
reference which lacked every element of what could be called
a newspaper on which the Orissa High Court had relied.
The Ist respondent cannot derive any assistance from
the deci-
786
sion of the High Court of Bombay in Commissoner of Sales Tax
v. M/s. Express Printing Press, AIR 1983 Bombay 191 in which
the Bombay High Court held that the two publications by name
‘Jocker’ and ‘Jabara’ which contained predictions or
forecasts of lucky numbers were not newspapers since those
publications had nothing to do with any recent event which
had taken place.
In the Annual Report of the Registrar of Newspapers for
India, 1957 there is an interesting discussion of certain
specific cases in which the question whether the
publications involved were newspapers or not. In the course
of the said report it is obversed thus:
"In this connection the Press Registrar
scrutinised reports published in certain foreign
countries regarding their own Press and it was
noticed that in the catalogues prepared by them
specialised newspapers such as the one under
consideration were not excluded from the list of
newspapers. Even technical journals such as
medical periodicals, journals related to sciences,
arts etc., were included. A catalogue of Yugoslav
newspapers and magazines, for instance, includes
publications relating to the following subjects:
Political information; economics; law and
states administration; education; philology;
natural sciences; medicine; agriculture;
technology; geography; ethnography history;
archives; archaeology; literature; music; applied
art; film; chess; photography; tourism; stamp
collecting; physical culture and sport; humour and
religion.
In a catalogue of Russian papers for 1958 all
the above categories of newspapers and periodicals
have been included in addition to many others
which deal exclusively with party affairs."
It is significant that the expression ‘newspaper’ as
defined in the Act includes not merely ‘public news’ but
also ‘comments on public news’. Every law report contains
the editorial note at the commencement of the decisions
printed therein and also comments on some of the recent
decisions. Law reports also contain, newly enacts Acts,
Rules and Regulations, book reviews and advertisements
relating to law books handwriting and finger print experts
etc., speeches made at conferences in which the legal
fraternity is interested etc. Though the
787
publication of these items by itself may not occupy a
substantial part of a law report to make it a newspaper, the
publication of the recent judgments itself is sufficient to
make a law report a newspaper which may after some time
cease to be a newspaper and become a book of reference.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11
The Act in question is a beneficent legislation which
is enacted for the purpose of improving the conditions of
service of the employees of the newspaper establishments and
hence even if it is possible to have two opinions on the
construction of the provisions of the Act the one which
advances the object of the Act and is in favour of the
employees for whose benefit the Act is passed has to be
accepted.
We are of the view that the law reports published by
the Ist respondent are newspapers and the employees employed
by the Ist respondent in their production or publication of
the said law reports should be extended the benefit of the
orders passed by the Central Government on the basis of the
recommendations made by the Palekar Award. We, accordingly,
allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court
and dismiss the writ petition filed by the Ist respondent
before the High Court. There will, however, be no order as
to costs.
S.L. Appeal allowed.
788