Pranav was appointed in the service of Innovative Publications Ltd. (A Company in the business of newspaper publications in name of Innovations Daily), as the Chief Sub-Editor in January, 2020. Thereafter on 01.01.2022 h

CS Professional · Labour Laws and Practice · PYQS · December 2025
Pranav was appointed in the service of Innovative Publications Ltd. (A Company in the business of newspaper publications in name of Innovations Daily), as the Chief Sub-Editor in January, 2020. Thereafter on 01.01.2022 he was promoted as Chief of News Bureau. The Company transferred Pranav to its Kozhikode Unit on 27.05.2022. However, without accepting the transfer order, on 30.05.2022, he had applied for leave from 01.06.2022 to 30.06.2022. Thereafter, on 01.07.2022, he again applied for leave for a further period of 50 days. Though Pranav had been directed to join duty at Kozhikode, he did not do so. Therefore, the Company issued a letter dated 10.11.2022 cautioning Pranav against taking leave for such a long duration. Since Pranav did not abide by the said communication, he was issued with a memo dated 29.11.2022 alleging grave misconduct. Pranav joined duty at Kozhikode thereafter. However, he was reluctant to discharge of his duties diligently. Subsequently, Pranav was transferred to Kollam as a Desk Editor of the Quilon Bureau on 13.04.2023. On 20.06.2023, a memo was issued to Pranav alleging unauthorised leave. Since he did not show any improvement, a show cause notice dated 22.07.2023 was issued to Pranav seeking his explanation. He was also informed by the said communication that the company would be constrained to terminate his services if his explanation was not submitted within three days. Pranav did not submit any explanation and therefore, he was dismissed from service on 05.08.2023. Pranav raised an industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Labour Court. Pranav claimed that he was designated as Chief of News Bureau, the duties discharged by him were those of a Working Journalist. He was the President of the Working Journalists Union during 2022-2023. During the period he was President, he had demanded enhancement of the wages inviting the wrath of the employer. His dismissal is on baseless charges and is motivated by the personal animosity nurtured by the employer. Though it was contended that his work was supervisory in nature, no evidence was adduced by the management in support of the said claim. Pranav's wife Bhumika was working as a Clerk-Typist in the Office of the Managing Director (MD) of Fine Fabrics Ltd. and Bhumika was reporting to Mahendra, Senior Manager of the MD's Secretariat. The FFL is engaged in manufacturing of synthetic yarn. A meeting of some foreign clients of the FFL was kept in a Five Star Hotel. Mahendra insisted Bhumika to go with him to the Hotel for taking dictation from the MD and type out the matter. Under the pressure of Mahendra, Bhumika went to take the dictation from the MD. While Bhumika was waiting in adjoining room for the dictation from the MD, Mahendra tried to sit too close to Bhumika and despite her objection he did not give up his objectionable behaviour. Bhumika later took dictation from the MD. Mahendra told her to type and get its print out. Since the laptop and printer were located in the basement of the Hotel, Mahendra volunteered to show her the basement for getting the matter typed and taking advantage of the isolated place and again tried to sit very close to her despite her objections. The draft typed matter was corrected by MD who asked Bhumika to retype the same. Mahendra again accompanied with Bhumika to the basement and repeated his overtures. Bhumika warned Mahendra that she would leave the place if he continued to behave like that, however, Mahendra did not stop and continued his objectionable acts. Next day, Bhumika made a written complaint to the MD. Pranav's child, named Akshay is just 10 years old but performs dance very well and participated in the School dance competitions. He also participated in the famous TV show of 'Dance India' which is telecasted on the TV having nationwide presence. In this background, answer the following questions: Whether Pranav is to be considered as a Working Journalist as per the provisions of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 ?

Answer & Explanation:

The facts of the case are similar to the case of Mangalam Publications (India) vs. Shri. Cherian Zachariah 22 July 1995 . According to the appellant, the respondent was not a working journalist under Section 2(f) of The Working Journalist Act. However, according to the Labour Court, the respondent was a working journalist and no evidence whether oral or documentary by the management to prove that the dismissal of the respondent is sustainable and no domestic inquiry was preceded before giving the dismissal. So, the court agreed by the Labour court and thus other petitions and dismissal were set aside by the court. And the dismissal of the respondent by the appellant was held arbitrary. The Court expressed that as per the above provision, a person whose principal avocation is that of a journalist and who is an Editor, Leader writer, News Editor, Sub Editor, Feature Editor, Copy Tester, Reporter, Correspondent etc. would come within the scope of the definition. At the time of his dismissal from service, Pranav was working as a Desk Editor of Innovations Daily at Kollam. As per the definition contained in Section 2(f) of the Working Journalists Act, being a Desk Editor, he comes within the scope of the definition. Though Pranav had been transferred to Kozhikode as Bureau Chief, he is seen to have been transferred to Quilon Bureau as a Desk Editor. The only inference therefore is that, the said posts were both equal and interchangeable. If the nature of the duties discharged by Pranav were supervisory, it was for the Management to have adduced evidence in proof of the said fact. No such evidence has been adduced in this case. Had the contention of the Publication Company' Management been true, they would certainly have had material evidence in proof of the said contention but no evidence regarding the nature of duties discharged by Pranav was shown by the Management. In the absence of any such evidence, the only conclusion possible is that the Pranav was a Working Journalist coming within the expression defined by Section 2(f) of the Working Journalists Act.

Topics: Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955

Open in Interactive Practice Hub · Full Practice Hub · Chapter Weightage · More in this subject

Related Questions in this Topic