1966 (3) TMI 94 - HC - Indian Laws

Court rules government employees not covered by Working Journalists Act. Section 19-B classification upheld. Constitutional challenge rejected.

L.D. Jain Versus General Manager, Government of India Press and Ors.

The court dismissed the petitions, ruling that the Petitioners, as government employees, were not covered by the Working Journalists (Conditions of ... - Issues Involved:1. Applicability of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 to the Petitioners.2. Classification of the Gazette of India as a 'newspaper' under Section 2(b) of the Act.3. Applicability and constitutionality of Section 19-B of the Act.4. Alleged violation of Article 14 of the Constitution due to discriminatory treatment.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 to the Petitioners:The Petitioners, employed as proof-readers in the Government of India Press, New Delhi, claimed entitlement to the benefits under the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955. They argued that they were being denied benefits regarding working hours stipulated by the Act. The Respondents contended that the Petitioners were government employees governed by various civil service rules and not by the Act. Additionally, it was admitted that the Petitioners were 'workers' under the Factories Act, 1948, and their working hours were regulated accordingly.2. Classification of the Gazette of India as a 'newspaper' under Section 2(b) of the Act:The Petitioners argued that the Gazette of India should be classified as a 'newspaper' under Section 2(b) of the Act, which defines a newspaper as 'any printed periodical work containing public news or comments on public news.' The court examined various notifications and publications within the Gazette, such as those related to awards, official appointments, and significant events, including the death of the Prime Minister and senior officers. It concluded that the Gazette of India, being an official publication of news and information by the government, qualifies as a 'newspaper' under the Act.3. Applicability and constitutionality of Section 19-B of the Act:Section 19-B exempts government employees, to whom specific civil service rules apply, from the provisions of the Act. The Petitioners argued that this section should not apply to them as they were also governed by various labor laws. The court, however, held that the Petitioners, being government employees, fell within the scope of Section 19-B, which was inserted to exclude government employees from the Act's purview. The court found that the Petitioners could not escape being governed by Section 19-B despite being subject to labor laws as well.4. Alleged violation of Article 14 of the Constitution due to discriminatory treatment:The Petitioners contended that Section 19-B was unconstitutional as it violated Article 14 by discriminating between private working journalists and government-employed proof-readers doing similar work. The court noted that the classification of government employees as a distinct class was reasonable and had a rational relation to the object of the Act, which was to ameliorate the conditions of service for working journalists in the private sector. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Express Newspaper (Private) Ltd. v. The Union of India, which upheld the classification of working journalists as a distinct group. It concluded that the differentiation made by Section 19-B did not violate Article 14.Conclusion:The court dismissed the petitions, holding that the Petitioners, as government employees, were not entitled to the benefits of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, due to the applicability of Section 19-B. The classification of the Gazette of India as a 'newspaper' was upheld, but the constitutional challenge to Section 19-B based on Article 14 was rejected. The court found no merit in the argument that Section 19-B was discriminatory or unconstitutional. The petitions were dismissed without any order as to costs.