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