Dear Shasidhar,
I think as per your earlier query, I correctly provided you a Ruling:
FIRST POINT
Your earlier query is :
" Pls clarify,
1. can a regular news contributor on contract basis will come under the meaning of employee under W.J.ACT and I.D.ACT.
2. A regular news contributor on contract basis who has been terminated from the services automatically by efflux of time .ie. after expiry of his contract period can claim gratuity from the company/employer "
In that query I had provided to you with a Ruling :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1924608/
Business Manager, Andhra Printers Ltd. vs Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court And Anr. on 4 August, 1992
In which is it is held that:
" 2. The 2nd respondent in the writ petition was the applicant before the Labour Court. He was a part-time Correspondent of Andhra Jyothi daily newspaper at Warangal. The 2nd respondent who was being paid a consolidated salary had claimed before the Labour Court scales of pay, Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance, Variable Dearness Allowance, Bonus and wages in lieu of earned leave, for the period between 1975 and 1986. The Management (petitioner herein) apart from denying entitlement of the petitioner to the monetary benefits claimed, took the plea that the remedy of the 2nd respondent lies under the provisions of the W.J. Act but not under the I.D. Act. The Labour Court rejected this plea of the Management recording its conclusion as follows :
" In view of the decision of the Karnataka High Court reported in 1982 - I - LLJ page 189, in view of the use of the words "without prejudice to any other mode of recovery" in Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists Act, in view of the scope of Section 33-C(2) of I.D. Act and in view of the fact that this Court alone has to decide the dispute between the parties either in a reference made by the Government or on a petition filed by the petitioner, I am of the opinion that M.P. 115/87 filed by petitioner is maintainable. Hence this petition is dismissed."
It is against this order of the Labour Court in I.A. No. 274/87 dated November 27, 1987 that the present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the order of the Labour Court.
....the impugned order of the Labour Court is unassailable. The writ petition therefore fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.
Further, in the above Judgement it is Observed and made a brief reference about Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 as follows:
" To resolve this controversy, it is necessary to make a brief reference to the relevant provision of the W.J. Act. As the preamble says, it is an Act to regulate certain conditions of service of working journalists and other persons employed in newspaper establishments. 'Newspaper employee' is defined to mean any working journalist, and includes any other person employed to do any work in or in relation to any newspaper establishment (Vide Clause (c) of Section 2); 'Working journalist' is defined to mean 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, reporter, etc. (Vide Clause (f) of S. 2). The bracketed words were substituted by Act 36 of 1981 with effect from August 13, 1980 in the place of the words "who is employed as such in or in relation to any newspaper establishment"."
" The Act also makes a provision for payment of gratuity on the termination, retirement, resignation or death of a working journalist without prejudice to any benefits or rights accruing under the Industrial Disputes Act. Restrictions on the hours of work of the working journalists are prescribed by the Act "
So, as per W.J. Act , it is crystal clear that, "NEWSPAPER EMPLOYEE" includes "...... any other person employed to do any work in or in relation to any newspaper establishment "
SECOND POINT
In your erlier query did you mentioned that, you are on behalf of either "EMPLOYEE" OR "MANAGEMENT".
CONCLUDING POINT
And now, by this Second Query,
and importantly
" BY BLAMING ME THAT, I DIDN'T PROVIDED YOU WITH CORRECT AND RELATED RULING"
" dear ejaz bhai iam thankful to you for sending the citation but the citation didnot anywhere speaks about the regular news contributor on contract basis. "
You are simply representing that, " Actually i am from the management side."
LAST BUT NOT LEAST POINT:
"Sorry Mr. Shashidhar don't take the above SERIOUSLY"
I will try my level best, if possible, to provide a relavant Judgment as required by you.
"ONCE AGAIN SORRY"
