Babu Ram Bansal, Journalist, Mansa (Punjab) v. State of Punjab & Ors.

CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH PRESENT: Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, Addl. A.G. Punjab, for the respondents No. 1 and 2. None for respondent No. 3. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the order dated

24.08.1992 (Annexure P-3), vide which the demand notice, whereby the dispute was sought by the workman to be referred to the Labour Court for adjudication, has been rejected and thereafter on a representation dated

03.09.1992, another order dated 09.08.1995 (Annexure P-5) was passed by the appropriate Government rejecting his said representation. The orders, CWP NO. 4283 of 1996 -2- therefore, impugned in the present writ petition are dated 24.08.1992 (Annexure P-3) and the order dated 09.08.1995 (Annexure P-5). Counsel for the petitioner contends that the appropriate Government i.e. Government of Punjab has rejected the demand notice dated 12.06.1991 submitted by the workman acting itself as an adjudicating authority. A finding has been recorded by the appropriate Government, which is beyond the domain of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). There is a limited authority with the appropriate Government under Section 10 of the Act that is enquired into the matter but it cannot adjudicate upon the dispute and give a finding to that effect. He further refers to representation dated 03.09.1992 (Annexure P-4), which was preferred by the workman against the rejection of the demand notice, wherein response of respondent No.

3 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner to the demand notice dated 12.06.1991 has been reproduced, the same, according to the counsel for the petitioner, clearly shows that respondent No. 3 has admitted that the petitioner was covered under the definition of ‘workman’ as given under the Act. He, on this basis, further says that the relationship of employer and employee also stands proved and, therefore, the order rejecting the demand notice is totally contrary to the records and cannot be sustained. On this basis, he further submits that the rejection of the representation vide order dated 09.08.1995 (Annexure P-5) also cannot be sustained on this ground. On the other hand, counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 has submitted that the appropriate Government, on an enquiry, has come to a conclusion that there was no relationship of employer and employee and further that the petitioner was not covered under the definition of 'workman' CWP NO. 4283 of 1996 -3- under the Act and, therefore, the order dated 24.08.1992 (Annexure P-3) has been rightly passed and accordingly, the representation dated 12.06.1991 vide order dated 09.08.1995 (Annexure P-5) has also been rightly rejected.

None has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents No. 1 and 2 and have gone through the records of the case. I have also gone through the reply filed by respondent No. 3. A perusal of the pleadings of the parties, it is apparent that the petitioner was appointed by the Tribune. The nature of appointment although is disputed but that would be a question of adjudication before the Labour Court, which would depend upon the evidence, which a party may adduce before the Labour Court. The most relevant pleading, with regard to the matter in question, is the response/written comments No. 14301 dated 13.07.1991 as submitted by respondent No. 3-Management before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, U.T., Chandigarh to the demand notice dated 12.06.1991 submitted by the workman. The same reads as follows:- “Para No. 1 With regard to para No.

1, it is stated that Mr. Bansal was employed as ‘Part-time correspondent’ at Mansa under ‘the working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Condition of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, in respect of the newspaper establishment of the Tribune Trust at Chandigarh including The Tribune, Dainik Tribune and Punjabi Tribune. It is, however, admitted that Mr. Bansal was covered under the definition of ‘workman’ as given under the Industrial CWP NO. 4283 of 1996 -4- Disputes Act, 1947, in view of the provisions of Section 2 of the said Act. " The above response of respondent No. 3 clearly shows beyond doubt that the opinion made by the appropriate authority while rejecting the demand notice dated 12.06.1991 is contrary to the admission made by respondent No. 3-Management. The order, therefore, passed by the appropriate Government i.e. Government of Punjab dated 24.08.1992 (Annexure P-3) cannot be sustained.