Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10
PETITIONER:
THE MANAGEMENT OF DAILY PRATAP
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THEM KATIBS
DATE OF JUDGMENT01/05/1972
BENCH:
VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.
BENCH:
VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.
PALEKAR, D.G.
CITATION:
1972 AIR 1872 1973 SCR (1) 438
1972 SCC (2) 342
ACT:
Working Journalists (Conditions of service) and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act 45 of 1955 s. 2(f)-Katibs of
Urdu newspaper whether Working Journalists.
HEADNOTE:
The Wage Board constituted by the Central Government in 1963
under s. 9 of the Working Journalists (,Condition of
service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 45 of 1955 defined
"calligraphist" as- an "artist who performs. journalistic
work and. also calligraphs matters." Artist", according tar
the Wage Board "is a person who prepares for publication
,drawing, layouts, maps graphs or other similar
embellishment, illustrations of any kind or r-realive art.
He may do some or all of these functions’ " Calligraphists
were included among working journalists by the Wage Board.
-The respondents who were Katibs in the employment of the
appellant claimed’ that they were "calligraphists" and
therefore working journalists and as such entitled to the
wages recommended by the Wage Board. The industrial dispute
in, this connection was decided by the Labour Court in
favour of the respondents. The decision of the Labour Court
was challenged by the appellant in this Court under Art. 136
of the Constitution. It was urged on behalf of the
appellant inter alia that the respondents did not satisfy
the definition of ’Working Journalist’ in s. 2(f) of the Act
under which two conditions must be satisfied namely, (1) He
must be a person whose principal avocation is that of a
journalist; and (2) He must be employed as such, or in
relation to any establishment as specified in the
definition.
HELD : (i) To come within the definition of "Calligraphist"
three conditions have to be satisfied by the employer; (1)
He must be an Artist; (2) He should perform journalistic
work; (3) He should also calligraph matters. [444 E]
The evidence established, and the appellant had conceded
before the Labour Court, that Katibs calligraph matter. The
evidence also established that Katibs prepare for
publication drawing, layouts and other similar
embellishments. The Labour Court’s finding that the
Respondents were artists as defined by the Wage Board was
correct. [445 D--E]
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10
The Katibs according to the evidence, make corrections in
the drafts furnished to them by the Editor. They even
sometimes substitute words, compress and enlarge the matters
according to, the availability of space and sometimes edit.
They also correct mistakes in the matter sent to them. All
this clearly went to establish that in the course of their
duties the respondents performed journalistic work.. [448
D]
Thus Katibs are Artists who perform journalistic work. and
who also calligraph matters. Accordingly they satisfy the
definition of ’calligraphist’ as per the Wage Board
Recommendations and they are ’working .journalists under s.
2(f) of the Act. Therefore the Labour Court was right in
holding that they were entitled to the higher scale of wages
recommended by the Wage Board for calligraphist and accepted
by the Central Government. [449 A-B]
439
(ii) The contention of the appellant that the respondents
did, not satisfy the definition of working journalist in s.
2(f) could not be accepted. When once the Wage Board has
given the definition of a Calligraphist and included persons
coming under that category in the definition of a working
journalist’ the, only test to be applied will be whether the
person concerned satisfied the requirements of the
definition given by the Wage Board. Under the conditions on
which special leave was- granted in the present case it was
no longer open to the appellant to question the jurisdiction
of the Wage Board when it included calligraphists in the
definition of ’working journalist’. [446 G]
Further, in the case of the Management of Express Newspaper
Ltd. v. B. Soinayajulu and others, this Court while dealing
with a provision substantially similar to s. 2(f) clearly
defined avocation as one’s calling or profession. it has
been further laid down therein that when a journalist is in
full time employment, there is no difficulty in holding what
his principal avocation is. Again dealing with the
requirement of being employed as such’, which also accured
in s. 2(f), it is laid down that the requirement of
employment is necessary to create a relationship of employer
and employee between the journalist and the newspaper
establishment. It is laid down that the definition will he
satisfied if the journalist is in exclusive employ of a
newspaper establishment, in which case his principal
avocation will be that of a journalist and he can be
considered to be employed as such. In the present case
there was no controversy that the katibs were full time
employees and there was the relationship of master and
servant. The tests laid down in this case were therefore
also satisfied. [447 C- F]
The Management of Express Newspapers Ltd. V. B. Soinayajulu
and others, [1964] 3 S.C.,R. 100 applied.
Newspapers (Private) Ltd, and another v. The Union of India
and others, [1959] S.C.R. 12 referred to.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :Civil Appeal No. 1309 of
1971.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Award dated the 5th June,
1971 of the Labour Court, Delhi in L.C.I.D. No. 19 of 1968.
V. S. Desai and Naunit Lal, for the appellant.
M. K. Ramamurthi, J. Mamamurthi and Romesh Pathak, for the
respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10
Vaidialingam, J.-.This appeal, by special leave, is directed
against the Award, dated June 5, 1971 of the Labour Court,
Delhi. in. L.C.I.D. No. 19 of 1968 holding that the Katibs
are calligraphists as defined in the Wage Board
Recommendations and that they are entitled to the rates of
wages prescribed by the Central Government Notification
dated October 27, 1967.
In the petition for special leave the appellant had raised
three main contentions : (1) The Wage Board exceeded its
jurisdiction in including Calligraphists in the definition
of Working Journalists
440
and hence its recommendation is of no effect; and in
consequence the Government Notification accepting the said
recommendation is also void; (2) The Katibs are. not Working
Journalists as defined in s. 2(f) of the Working Journalists
(Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,
1955 (Act 45 of 1955) as amended (hereinafter to be referred
to as the Act); and (3) The finding of the Labour Court that
the Katibs are Calligraphists as defined in the Wage Board
Recommendations is erroneous. But this Court on September
8, 1971 granted special leave in respect of all questions
raised in the special leave petition except the question as
to whether the calligraphists were properly recommended to,
be working journalists by the Wage Board.
Therefore, it will be seen that the appellant is not
entitled to raise the first question in this appeal that the
Wage Board exceeded ’its jurisdiction in including
calligraphists in the definition of working _journalists.
It further follows that the Notification of the Central
Government accepting the recommendations of the Wage Board
cannot also be challenged.
The appellant is publishing "Pratap" a daily newspaper from
Delhi in Urdu language. Unlike English and Hindi, Urdu
papers ,Are printed with the help of Katibs and not with the
assistance of compositers. Under s. 9 of the Act, the
Central Government constituted a Wage Board by notification
dated November 12, 1963 for the purpose of fixing of
revising the rates of wages in respect of working
journalists in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
The Wage Board made its recommendations. In Schedule 1,
section 1 relating to newspapers, the Wage Board had
enumerated various personnel. In group 3, the Sub-Editor,
Reporter, Correspondent, Newsphotographer, Artist, Calligra-
phist, Librarian or Index Assistant are referred to and
their functions given. We will have to refer later to the
definition of the two expressions "Artist" and
"Calligraphist". In paragraph
4.27of the Report the Wage Board had recommended that the
working journalists of different groups employed in
different classes of newspapers and news agencies should be
paid basis pay per mensem in accordance with the scales
given therein. The newspapers were, divided into various
classes and there is no controversy that the appellant
belongs to class V. The, pay scale for the type of employees
enumerated in group 3 and referred to earlier, working in a
newspaper coming under class V was fixed in the scale of Rs.
175-15-250-30-400-35-575. The Central Government by and
large, accepted the recommendation of ,the Wage Board
subject to certain minor modifications.. Accordingly the
Central Government under s. 12 of the Act issued a notifica-
tiori No. 80-3883 dated October 27, 1967 directing that the
recommendations of the Wage Board accepted by the Central
Government have to be implemented from the dates mentioned
therein.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10
441
The Katibs in the employ of the appellant claimed that they
,,ire calligraphists as defined by the Wage Board in its
recommendations and accepted by the Central Government and
as such they are "working journalists" under the Act. They
claimed that they should receive the Wages according to the
scale as recommended by the Wage Board. The appellant was
not agreeable to accede to this demand on the ground that
the Katibs are not Calligraphists and in consequence they
are not working journalists and as such they are not
entitled to the higher emoluments provided in the Wage Board
Recommendations. Finally, the parties agreed on April 30,
1968 that the dispute whether the Katibs are working
journalists or not, under the definition of Calligraphists
as prescribed by the Wage Board will be jointly referred by
the parties under s. 10(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
On a joint application by both parties, the Lt. Governor,
Delhi, by his order dated September 23, 1968, referred to
the Labour Court, Delhi for adjudication the following
dispute :
"Whether the Katibs are Working Journalists under the
definition of "Calli raphists" as prescribed by the Wage
Board and whether they are entitled to rates of wages as
prescribed for "Calligraphists" under Government
Notification No. 80-3883 dated the 27th October, 1967 and if
so, what directions are necessary in this respect?"
Before the Labour Court, the Katibs relied on the Wage Board
Recommendations and claimed that they were Calligraphists,
who had been included as Working Journalists. Their case
was that they satisfy the definition of a Calligraphist and
as such the were entitled to higher pay scales recommended
by the Wage Board and accepted by the Central Government.
This claim was contested by the appellant on the ground that
the Katibs were not Calligraphists as their work was only to
write in a neat hand whatever was supplied to them by the
SubEditors. The nature of the duties of a Katib and a
Calligraphist was radically different and the former were
not covered by the Wage Board Recommendations and the
Central ’Government
The Labour Court has recorded the following findings The
Katibs working in the establishment of the appellant
calligraph matters. The counsel for the appellant herein
conceded that the Katibs were calligraphing the matters but
nevertheless they were not calligraphists as defined by the
Wage Board. The evidence, both oral and documentary,
establishes that the Katibs prepare the lay out headings,
shading and beautification etc. and they
442
are artists as defined by the Wage Board. The Katibs make
correcting in the drafts furnished to them by the Editor and
substitute their own words and either compress or enlarge
the matter, according to availability of space-, The
corrections and substitutions made by the Katibs as
disclosed by the evidence show that the corrections and
substitutions were of such a substantial nature that they
could be made only by a person who knew the language, the
facts and had a grasp of the current affairs. The Kattbs
therefore do journalistic work. The Katibs satisfied the
requirements of the definition of "Calligraphist" contained
in the Wage Board Recommendations. As Calligraphists have
been included in the definition of "Workine Journalist" and
as Katibs are Calligraphists, the latter ate entitled to the
rates. of Wages prescribed in the Wage Board
Recommendations.
Mr. V. S. Desai, learned counsel for the appellant has
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10
strenuously attacked the reasoning of the Labour Court that
the Katibs are Calligraphists and as such entitled to, the
higher rates of pay. The counsel urged that in no sense can
the Katib be considered to be an artist; nor can he be
considered to perform journalistic work. In order to come
within the definition of working journalist under the Act,
the principal avocation of the person concerned must be that
of a journalist and he must have been employed as such in
any newspaper establishment. This aspect, according to the
learned counsel, has not at all been considered by the
Labour Court. The work of the Katibs was merely to write in
neat hand whatever is supplied to them by the editorial
staff. The Katibs do not satisfy the definition of
"Calligraphist" under the Wage Board Recommendations.
On the other hand, Mr. M. K. Ramamurthi, learned counsel for
the respondent, pointed out that when the Katibs, like, the
respondents, are admittedly in the exclusive employ of the
appellant, the- question of their principal avocation does
not arise. ’That question will arise only when employment
in a newspaper establishment is not exclusive. The
expression "employed as such" in S. 2 (f ) of the Act is not
to be understood as "employed as journalist". But it only
denotes the relationship of and servant which admittedly
exists in the present case. The expression "journalistic
work" or "journalist" has not been defined either in the Act
or in the Wage Board Recommendations and it has, to be
understood in a technical sense having, regard to the
historical backgound of the newspaper industry. The
activity of being journalist will’ include being on the
editorial staff of a newspaper as opposed to the press
workers and managerial staff. The counsel further pointed
out that the expression "Calhigraphist" ,has been defined in
the Wage Board Recommendations and on an appreciation of the
evidence, the Labour Court has recorded
443
findings on the material on record that the Katibs discharge
various items of work to qualify them to come under the
definition. Hence the counsel urged that the Award of the
Labour Court holding that Katibs are Calligraphists and as
such "working journalist" is proper.
It is now necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of
the Act. Section 2(f) defines- "working journalist" as
follows :-
"(2) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires :
(f) "working journalist" means a person whose principal
avocation is that of a journalist and who is employed as
such in, or in relation to, any newspaper establishment, and
includes an editor, a leader-writer, news editor, sub-
editor, feature-writer, copy-testeT, reporter, correspon-
dent, cartoonist, news-photographer and proofreader, but
does not include any such person who-
(i) is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative
capacity, or
(ii) 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 of a mana-
gerial nature;"
Chapter II deals with the working journalist. Section 8
gives power to the Central Government to fix or revise from
time to time the rates of wages in respect of working
journalists. Section 9 deals with the procedure for such
fixation or revision of rates of wages. It contemplates the
constitution by the Central Government of a Wage Board for
the said purpose, consisting of the persons mentioned in the
section. Sections 10 and 11 deal with the procedure to be
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10
adopted by the Board as well as the latter making
recommendations to the Central Government. Section 12 gives
power to the Central Government to enforce the recom-
mendations of the Board either with or without modification.
Section 13 provides that on the coming into operation of an
order issued by the Central Government under s. 12, every
working journalist will be entitled to be paid by his
employer wages at the rate which is to be in no case less
than the rate of wages specified in the order.
It was under s. 9 that the Central Government constituted
the Wage Board on November 12, 1963. It was under s. 12
that -LI 286SupCI/72
444
the Central Government issued Notification dated October 10,
1967 substantially accepting the recommendations of the Wage
Board and directing that the recommendations so accepted are
to come into force with effect from the date referred to
therein.
In Schedule 1, section 1, relating to newspapers, the Wage
Board has placed the "working journalist" under various
groups. Group 3, as mentioned earlier, enumerates various
categories of employees. It is only necessary to refer to
the two categories mentioned therein, namely, "Artist" and
"Calligraphist". They have been referred to as follows
"Artist" is a person who prepares for publication drawing,
layouts, maps, graphs or other similar embellishment,
illustrations of any kind or creative art. He may do some
or all of these functions."
"Calligraphist" is an artist who performs journalistic work
and also calligraphs matters."
We have already referred to the fact that the appellant
establishment comes under class V and in respect of the
persons coming under group 3, paragraph 4.27 gives wages,
scale and grade.
Then the question is whether the Katibs are Calligraphists
as defined above. As per the definition given above, to
come within the definition of "Calligraphist" three
conditions have to be satisfied by an employee; (1) He must
be an Artist; (2) He should perform journalistic work; and
(3) He should also calligraph matters.
The definition of the expression "artist" has been given
above. Therefore, one of the conditions for being a
"Calligraphist" is that the employee must be an Artist. As
that expression has been defined by the Wage Board, in our
opinion, the requirements of that definition will have to be
satisfied before a person can be characterised as an Artist.
If the evidence discloses that a person does some or all the
functions enumerated in the definition of "Artist" then he
must be considered to be an "Artist" as per the Wage Board
definition.
We will now consider whether the Katibs : (a) are Artists;
(b) perform journalistic work; and (c) also calligraph
matters.
So far as calligraphing of matters is concerned, the Labour
Court has referred to the evidence of M. Ws. 1, 2 and 5 and
also to 13 witnesses, all Katibs, who gave evidence on the
side of the Union. They have all given evidence to the
effect that after getting the matter from the editorial
staff they write in a beautiful manner. In fact, even the
case of the appellant is that the Katibs write in a neat and
beautiful hand whatever is given to them by the editorial
staff. The oral evidence, referred to above, as well
445
as the documentary evidence Exs. W., 15, W.- 16 and W. 38
and various other exhibits of a similar nature clearly
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10
establish Oat the Katibs Calligraph matters. We do not
propose to again refer to the above items of evidence, as we
are in entire agreement with the Labour Court’s
appreciation. as well as its findings based upon that
evidence that the katibs calligraph matters.In fact, it is
also seen that the counsel for the appellant had conceded
before the Labour Court that the, Katibs calligraph matters.
But the contention appears to have been that they are
neither artists nor do they perform journalistic work which
are the two other essential conditions to be satisfied to
come under the definition of Calligraphist. That aspect
will be dealt with by us later. We are of the opinion that
the evidence discussed by the Labour Court clearly shows
that one requirement of the definition, namely, that Katibs
calligraph matters, is established.
Then the question is whether the Katibs are Artists. The
Wage Board has clearly indicated as to who an Artist is and
that has been referred to by us earlier. We cannot travel
beyond the dictionary provided by the Wage Board itself. So
far ’as this aspect is concerned, here again, the Labour’
Court has referred to the various items of oral and
documentary evidence which clearly establish that Katibs
pp.-pare for publication drawing, lay outs and other similar
embellishments. The witnesses have deposed to the nature of
the material given to them as also the completed products,
from which the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that
the Katibs are Artists as defined in the Wage Board
Recommendations. As we are of the view that there has been
a proper appreciation of the evidence by the Labour Court,
we are in entire agreement with the conclusion arrived at by
that Court in this regard.
This takes us to the question whether the further
requirement of the Katibs performing journalistic work is
established on the evidence. Neither the expression
"journalistic work" nor "journalist" has been defined either
in the Act or in the Wage\ Board Recommendations. The
history of the legislation leading upto the Act has been
elaborately considered by this Court in Express Newspapers
(Private) Ltd. and another v. The Union of India and
others.(1) The definition of "working journalist" in s. 2(f)
of the Act deals with three aspects : (1) A person whose
principal avocation is that of a journalist and who is
employed as such in or in relation to any newspaper
establishment, is a working journalist; (2) In the
expression "working journalist" is also included 11
categories of persons mentioned therein; and (3) sub-clauses
(1) and (2) exclude persons mentioned therein ’from the
definition of "Working journalist".
(1) [1959] S.C.R. 12.
446
Normally, when the Wage Board Recommendation has included
Calligraphist. as a Working Journalist and has also
specified who is a Calligraphist, it should not be difficult
to accept the contention of the respondent that they do
journalistic work. But Mr. V. S. Desai, learned counsel for
the appellant, contended that before a person can be a
working journalist, he must satisfy two conditions, namely,
(1) He must be a person whose principal avocation is that of
a journalist; and (2) He must be employed as such or in
relation to any establishment as specified in the defi-
nition. It is no doubt true that this Court in The
Management of Express Newspapers Ltd. v. B. Somavajulu and
others(1) when dealing with the definition of a working
journalist contained in s. 2(b) of Act 1 of 1955, which is
substantially similar to s. 2(f) of the Act, has laid down
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10
the above two requirements. In the said decision this Court
was considering whether a person who claimed to be a part-
time correspondent in the moffusil area was a "working
journalist" under the inclusive part of the definition in s.
2(b) of Act 1 of 1955. At the time when this decision was
given there was no definition of "Calligraphist" as now
given by the Wage Board; nor was that category in the
inclusive part in s. 2(f). The Wage Board’s definition
merely requires that he should be an Artist "who performs
journalistic work and also calligraphs matters". There is
no requirement in this definition that he should be a
journalist whose principal avocation is that of a
journalist. It is a matter of considerable doubt whether
one of the conditions to be satisfied as laid down by this
Court that he must be a person whose principal avocation is
that of a journalist when interpreting the inclusive part of
the definition as contained in s. 2(f) of the Act will still
apply. If Mr. Desai’s contention is to be accepted, s. 2(f)
of the Act omitting the matters not relevant for our purpose
will have to be read as follows
"Working journalist" means a person whose principal
avocation is that of a journalist and who is employed as
such in, or in relation to, any newspaper establishment, and
includes a calligraphist who is an artist who performs
journalistic work and also calligraphs matters."
It needs no explanation to say that the above reading will
not be a very happy one. When once the Wage Board has given
the definition of a Calligraphist and included persons
coming under that category in the definition of a "working
journalist" the only test to be applied will be whether the
person concerned satisfies the requirements of the
definition given by the Wage Board. We have already
referred to the fact that it is no longer open to the
appellant to question the jurisdiction of the Wage Board
when it included Calligraphists in the definition of
"Working Journalist".
(1) [1964] 3 S.C.R. 100.
447
Once the jurisdiction of the Wage Board is conceded, the
approach to be made is only to find out whether a person,
who claims to be a calligraphist satisfies the definition as
given by the Wage Board. No doubt the definition of
Calligraphist will have to be read along with the definition
of "Artist" given by the Wage Board. We have already held
that the Labour Court’s finding that Katibs are artists as
defined by the Wage Board is correct.
However, even applying the test, as contended for by Mr.
Desai in the instant case, as we will presently show, that
requirement is also satisfied. It should be noted that in
the above decision, ;this Court clearly defines avocation as
one’s calling or profession. It has been further laid down
therein that when a journalist who is in the full time
employment, there is no difficulty in holding what his
principal avocation is. Again dealing with the requirement
of "being employed as such", which occurs also in s.2(f) of
the Act, it is laid down that the requirement of employment
is necessary to create a relationship of employer and
employee between the journalist and the newspaper
establishment. It has been further held that the employment
in the context necessarily postulates exclusive employment,
as a working journalist cannot serve two employers. But,
later on, this Court in the same decision has held that on a
fair construction of s. 2 (b) of Act 1 of 1955 corresponding
to s. 2(f) of the Act, it is possible to hold that even a
part time employee will satisfy the test of the definition.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10
But the point to be noted is that it is laid down that the
definition will be satisfied if the journalist is in
exclusive employ of a newspaper establishment, in which case
his principal avocation will be that of a journalist and he
can be considered to be employed as such. In the case
before us there is no controversy that the Katibs are full
time employees and there is the relationship of master and
servant. If so, it follows that the tests laid down by this
Court, in the decision referred to above, are satisfied.
Then the question is whether they perform journalistic work.
As per the definition of Calligraphist given by the Wage
Board, it is only necessary that apart from the other
functions mentioned therein, the person concerned must
perform journalistic work. In this connection Mr. V. S.
Desai referred us to the evidence of the various Katibs on
the side of the Union to the effect that their educational
qualification does not go beyond the IXth class. According
to him, to be a journalist requires a fairly high degree of
education. Normally, it would be very desirable that they
have a very high degree of education; but the qualification
necessary depends upon the particular type of journalistic
work that the employee is called upon to do. In this case
M.W. 5, is the editor of the appellant newspaper for about
20 years. He writes editorials. When he gave evidence he
was the Chief Editor of the
448
newspaper. Even according to him he has no high
qualification in Urdu and he has read Urdu upto VI or VII
class. We have referred to this aspect only to show that
even such a responsible officer as the’ Chief Editor of the
appellant has only such qualifications. ’Mat shows that
even though the Katibs have no high qualification they have
got knowledge of Urdu in which language the paper is being
published.
It is significant to note that in group 3, the Wage Board
has included a Calligraphist as a Working Journalist along
with certain other categories who are admittedly working
journalists by virtue of the inclusive definition in s. 2(f)
of the Act. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that a
person who does the items of work, at least analogous to the
categories of persons who come within the definition under
s. 2(f) can be considered to be doing journalistic work.
The evidence in this case which has been analysed and dis-
cussed by the labour Court establishes that Katibs make
corrections in the drafts furnished to them by the Editor.
They even sometimes substitute words, compress and enlarge
the matters according to the availability of space and
sometimes Edit. This type of work, in our opinion, can
certainly be characterised as performance of journalistic
work. In particular, we will only refer to the, evidence of
M. Ws. 3 and 11. W.W.3 has spoken to the fact that he
corrects the spellings and idioms and also substitutes words
and increases or decreases matter according to availability
of space. He has referred to the original matter received
by him as also the final material produced by him. He has
spoken to the fact that he had deleted certain facts
contained in the matter originally received by him and
compressed the same in the new material as no space was
available. He has also spoken to; having added few lines of
his own. He has spoken with reference to the exhibits.
When he has referred in detail to the original particulars
received from the editorial staff and to the nature of the
alterations made by him, there has been no suggestion in
cross-examination on the side of the appellant that his
statements are not borne out by the records. To a similar
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10
effect is the evidence of W.W. 11 who has also spoken to the
fact that he has either reduced the material on his own
responsibility or has to put the matter in a small space or
increased the matter by making certain additions of his
own.. Even in respect of certain technical aspects relating
to certain’matters, the witneses have deposed to the fact
that as there were very serious mistakes in the matters sent
to them, they of their own volition corrected as they are
well acquainted with the subject with which they were
dealing with. In our opinion, all this evidence clearly
establishes that in the course of their duties,, the Katibs
perform journalistic work.
44 9
From the discussion contained above, it follows that the
Katib are Artists who perform journalistic work and who also
calligraph matters. Accordingly, they satisfy the
definition of "Calligraphist" as per the Wage Board
Recommendations and they are "working journalists" under s.
2(f) of the Act. It follows that the Labour Court was right
in holding that they are entitled to the higher scale of
wages recommended by the Wage Board for Calligraphists and
accepted by the Central Government.
In the result, the Award of the Labour Court is confirmed
and this appeal dismissed with costs.
It is represented by the appellant’s counsel that 70% of the
increased rate has been already paid. The appellant to pay
the balance amount within 3 months from today in accordance
with the directions already given regarding interest.
G.C. Appeal dismissed.
450