http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: ALL INDIA REPORTER KARAMCHARI SANGH & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ALL INDIA REPORTER LIMITED AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT02/05/1988

BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) OJHA, N.D. (J)

CITATION:  1988 AIR 1325            1988 SCR  (3) 774  1988 SCC  Supl.  472     JT 1988 (2)   244  1988 SCALE  (1)990

ACT:      Working  Journalists  and  other  Newspapers  Employees (Conditions of  Service) and  Miscellaneous Provisions  Act, 1955 (Act  No. 45  of 1955)-Whether  law  reports-All  India Reporter, Criminal Law Journal, Labour and Industrial Cases, Taxation  Law  Reports,  Allahabad  Law  Journal,  U.P.  Law Tribune published  by All India Reporter Ltd. are newspapers as defined-in-And  whether employees  of All  India Reporter Limited engaged  in production  of publication  of these law reports are entitled to benefits conferred upon employees of newspaper establishments by the above Act. 6      The question which arose for consideration in this case was whether  the law  reports, namely,  All India  Reporter, Criminal Law  Journal, Labour and Industrial Cases, Taxation Law Reports,  Allahabad Law  Journal and  U.P. Law  Tribune, published by  the  respondent  No.  1,  All  India  Reporter Limited,  were   newspapers  as   defined  in   the  Working Journalists and  other Newspapers  Employees (Conditions  of Service) and  Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (’the Act’) and whether  the employees  of the 1st respondent engaged in the production  or publication  of the said law reports were entitled to the benefits conferred upon the employees of the newspaper establishments by the Act.      In exercise of the powers conferred by section 13AA and section 13DD  of the Act, the Central Government constituted two Tribunals  with Justice Palekar as Member of each of the two Tribunals  to make  recommendations in respect of fixing or revising wages of the working journalists as well as non- working    journalists.    Justice    Palekar    made    his recommendations on  12.8.1980. In  exercise  of  its  powers under section 12 of the Act, the Central Government accepted a part  of the  recommendations and made an order thereon on 26.12.1980 and  then accepted  the  remaining  part  of  the recommendations and made another order thereon on 20.7.1981.      The  1st  respondent  had  not  been  served  with  any individual notice  by the  Tribunal  before  it  passed  its award. The  1st respondent  also had not sent a reply to the questionnaire issued by the Tribunal, nor had it 775 given any  evidence before  the Tribunal  in respect  of the matters referred to therein.      The  Deputy   Labour  Commissioner  wrote  to  the  1st

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

respondent asking  it to  file its written statements in the matter of  non-implementation of  the Palekar  Award, as the orders of  the Central  Government made  under section 12 of the Act  were popularly called. The 1st respondent submitted its reply  inter alia  contending that  it was not running a newspaper  establishment   and  its  publications  were  not newspapers and  as such the Palekar Award was not applicable to it. The Deputy Labour Commissioner again wrote to the 1st respondent saying  that the  1st respondent  was  liable  to implement the  order of  the Central  Government made on the recommendations  of  the  Palekar  Tribunal  since  the  1st respondent was  a newspaper  establishment. Upon  receipt of this notice, the 1st respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court, questioning the validity of the notice served on it by  the Deputy  Labour Commissioner,  calling upon  it to implement the  orders of  the Central Government-The Palekar Award.  The   High  Court  accepted  the  plea  of  the  1st respondent and  declared  that  the  law  reports  were  not newspapers within the meaning of section 2(b) of the Act and that the  demand made  by the Deputy Labour Commissioner for compliance with the orders made by the Central Government on the basis  of the  recommendations of  Justice  Palekar  was unsustainable. Aggrieved  by the decision of the High Court, the appellants moved this Court for relief by special leave.      Allowing the appeal, the Court,

HEADNOTE:      HELD: The  Court was concerned with the narrow question whether the  six law  reports aforementioned being published by the  1st respondent were newspapers within the meaning of the  Act   and  whether   the  employees  engaged  in  their production or  distribution were  entitled to the benefit of the orders  made by  the Central  Government on the basis of the Palekar Award. [781F]      In order  to be  a newspaper,  a work  must  be  (i)  a printed work,  (ii) a  periodical, and  (iii) should contain public news  or comments  on public news. Any other class of printed periodical  work as  may,  from  time  to  time,  be notified in  this behalf  by the  Central Government  in the official Gazette,  may also  be a  newspaper. There  was  no dispute in  this case that the law reports are printed works and that  they are  periodicals.  The  only  question  which remained to  be considered was whether they contained public news or comments on public news, Newspapers and 776 books are  no doubt  shown as  separate items in Entry 39 of List III  of the  Seventh Schedule  to the Constitution, but the distinction  between them sometimes becomes very thin or totally vanishes. [781G-H;782A-B]      The law  reports being  published by the 1st respondent are reports  of recent  decisions of  the Supreme  Court  of India and the High Courts in India, which are supplied to it by its  agents appointed at New Delhi and other places where the High  Courts are situated. These decisions are of public importance. The law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all  the Courts  in India,  as provided by Article 141 of the Constitution. The decisions of the Supreme Court-a court of record-constitute  a source  of law  as they are judicial precedents of  the highest  court  of  the  land.  They  are binding on all the courts throughout India. The decisions of every High  Court being  judicial precedents  are binding on all  the   Courts  situated   in  the  territory  under  the jurisdiction of the High Court. The decisions of the Supreme

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

Court and  High Courts  are almost as important as statutes, rules and  regulations passed  by the competent legislatures and other  bodies. The  decisions of  the  superior  courts, while they  settle the  disputes between  the parties to the proceedings, are  sources of law in so far as all others are concerned. As soon as a decision is rendered, the members of the public  would be  interested in  knowing it; lawyers and others connected  with the  courts and  judicial proceedings are interested  in knowing  the contents  and effects of the decisions. The  1st respondent  and other  publishers of law reports, in  the interests  of their  own business, vie with each other  to publish the judgments of the Supreme Court or the High  Courts as  early as possible in their law reports, published periodically-weekly,  fortnightly or monthly. They believe the  faster the  decisions are  published  in  their reports, the  larger will  be the number of subscribers. The contents of  these law  reports constitute news in so far as the subscribers  and readers of these reports are concerned. By reading  these law  reports, they  come to  know  of  the latest legal  position prevailing  in  the  country  on  any question decided  in the  decisions  reported  in  the  said reports.  Hence,   it  was   difficult  to  agree  with  the submission of  the 1st  respondent that  the law reports did not carry any news and that the public was not interested in them. Any  decision published  in the law reports of the 1st respondent contains  information  about  the  recent  events which have  taken place  in the  Supreme Court  or the  High Courts which  are public  bodies and  these are  matters  in which  public   is  interested.  The  Court  found  it  also difficult to agree with the submission of the 1st respondent that since  the law reports are going to be preserved by the lawyers  as  reference  books  after  getting  them  rebound subsequently, they should be treated as books. The decisions contained in these law reports may 777 cease to be items of news after some time, but when they are received by  the subscribers,  they do possess the character of works containing news. [782G-H; 783A-H]      Strong reliance was placed by the 1st respondent on the decision of  the High  Court of  Orissa in  P.S.V.  Iyer  v. Commissioner of  Sales Tax, Orissa, AIR 1960 Orissa 221, but the Court  found it  difficult to  agree with  that decision since the  High Court had omitted to take into consideration that information  about recent  decisions of  the Courts  of record could be news in which the public was interested. The fact that  a law book could be used as a reference book at a later stage  was not  sufficient to hold that the law report did not  contain public  news when  it was  received by  the subscriber. [784A, G-H]      It is  sufficient that  the expression  ’newspaper’  as defined in  the Act  includes not  merely ’public  news’ but also ’comments  on public  news’. Every  law report contains the editorial  note and  also comments on some of the recent decisions. The  law Reports also contain newly enacted Acts, Rules  and  Regulations,  book  reviews  and  advertisements relating to law books, handwriting and finger print experts, etc., speeches  made  at  conferences  in  which  the  legal fraternity is  interested, etc.  Though the  publication  of these items by itself may not occupy a substantial part of a law report  to make  it a  newspaper, the publication of the recent judgments itself is sufficient to make a law report a newspaper which  may after some time cease to be a newspaper and become a book of reference. [786G-H; 787A-B]      The Act  is a  beneficient legislation which is enacted for improving  the conditions of service of the employees of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

the newspaper  establishments, and even if it is possible to have two  opinions on  the construction of the provisions of the Act, the one which advances the object of the Act and is in favour  of the  employees for  whose benefit  the Act  is passed has to be accepted. [787B-C]      The Law  Reports published  by the  1st respondent  are newspapers and  the employees employed by the 1st respondent in their  production or  publication should  be extended the benefit of  the orders  passed by  the Central Government on the  basis  of  the  recommendations  made  by  the  Palekar Award.[787C-D]      The judgment  of the  High Court  was set aside and the writ petition  filed by  the 1st  respondent before the High Court was dismissed. [787D] 778      P.S.V. Iyer  v. Commissioner  of Sales Tax, Orissa, AIR 1960 Orissa  221; T.V.  Ramanath &  Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., [1975]  Labour and  Industrial Cases 488; L.D. Jain v. General Manager,  Government of  India Press and Others, ILR 1967 Punjab  and Haryana  193; Ex Parte Stillwell, [1923] 29 V.L.R. 413  and Commissioner  of Sales  Tax v.  M/s. Express Printing Press, AIR 1983 Bombay 191, referred to.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8440 of 1983.      From the  Judgment and  Order dated 22.4.83 of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2388/82.      M.K. Ramamurthy and A.K. Sanghi for the Appellant.      Dr. Y.S. Chitale, P.H. Parekh, R.K. Dhillon, Ms. Sunita Sharma and Dr. D. Chandrachud for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      VENKATARAMIAH,  J.   The  question   which  arises  for consideration in  this  case  is  whether  the  law  reports namely, All India Reporter, Criminal Law Journal, Labour and Industrial  Cases,   Taxation  Law  Reports,  Allahabad  Law Journal  and   U.P.  Law   Tribune  published   by  the  1st respondent, All  India Reporter  Limited, are  newspapers as defined in  the  Working  Journalists  and  Other  Newspaper Employees  (Conditions   of   Service)   and   Miscellaneous Provisions Act,  1955 (Act  No.  45  of  1955)  (hereinafter referred to  as ’the  Act’) and whether the employees of the 1st respondent  engaged in  the production or publication of the said  law reports are entitled to the benefits conferred upon the employees of newspaper establishments by the Act.      The Act  was enacted  on 20th  December, 1955  with the object  of  regulating  certain  conditions  of  service  of working journalists  and other  employees  employed  in  the newspaper  establishments.  The  expression  "newspaper"  is defined by section 2(b) of the Act as follows:           " "Newspaper"  means any  printed periodical  work           containing public  news or comments on public news           and  includes   such  other   class   of   printed           periodical work  as may,  from time  to  time,  be           notified in  this behalf by the Central Government           in the Official Gazette." 779      A "newspaper  employee" is  defined by  section 2(c) of the Act  as any  working journalist,  and includes any other person employed  to do  any work  in, or in relation to, any newspaper  establishment.   "Newspaper   establishment"   is defined by section 2(d) of the Act as an establishment under the control  of any  person  or  body  of  persons,  whether

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

incorporated or  not, for  the production  or publication of one or  more newspapers or for conducting any news agency or syndicate. The expression "working journalist" is defined by section  2(f)  of  the  Act  as  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, a leader-writer,  news editor,  sub-editor,  feature-writer, copy-tester,  reporter,   correspondent,  cartoonist,  news- photographer and proof-reader, but does not include any such person  who   is  employed   mainly  in   a  managerial   or administrative capacity,  or 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  mainly  of  a  managerial  nature.  A  "non- journalist newspaper  employee" means any person employed to do  any   work  in,   or  in   relation  to,  any  newspaper establishment, but does not include any such person who is a working journalist, or is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity  or 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  mainly of  a managerial  nature as stated in section 2(dd) of the Act.      Chapter II  of the Act deals with certain conditions of service of  the working journalists. Those provisions relate to the  retrenchment, payment  of gratuity,  hours of  work, leave, fixation or revision of wages etc. Chapter IIA of the Act  deals  with  similar  conditions  of  service  of  non- journalist newspaper employees.      Section 9  of the Act authorises the Central Government to  appoint   a  Wage   Board  consisting   of  two  persons representing   employers    in   relation    to    newspaper establishments;    two    persons    representing    working journalists; and  three independent  persons,  one  of  whom shall be  a person  who is,  or has  been, a Judge of a High Court or  of the Supreme Court and who shall be appointed by that Government  as the  Chairman thereof for the purpose of making recommendations  with regard  to fixation or revision of wages  of working  journalists. Similarly, section 13C of the Act  provides for  the constitution  of a Wage Board for the purpose of making recommendations regarding the fixation or revision  of the  rates  of  wages  in  respect  of  non- journalist news- 780 paper employees. Section 13AA which was inserted by Act 6 of 1979 provides  for the constitution of a Tribunal for fixing or revising rates of wages in respect of working journalists where the  Central Government  is of  opinion that the Board constituted under  section 9  for the  purpose of  fixing or revising rates  of wages  in respect  of working journalists under the  Act has  not been  able to  function effectively. That Tribunal has to consist of a Judge of the High Court or of the  Supreme Court.  Similarly section  13DD of  the  Act empowers the  Central Government  to constitute  a  Tribunal where it  is of  opinion that  the Board  constituted  under section 13C  of the  Act  has  not  been  able  to  function effectively. Section  13AA and  section 13DD of the Act came into force with effect from January 31, 1979. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 13AA and section 13DD of the Act the  Central Government  constituted under  two separate notifications  two   Tribunals  on   9.2.1979  with  Justice Palekar, a  former Judge of the Supreme Court, as the member of each  of the  two Tribunals  to make  recommendations  in respect of  fixing or  revising wages of working journalists

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

as well as non-working journalists. Justice Palekar made his recommendations on  12.8.1980. In  exercise  of  its  powers under section  12 of the Act the Central Government accepted a part  of the  recommendations and made an order thereon on 26.12.1980  and   accepted  the   remaining  part   of   the recommendations and made another order thereon on 20.7.1981.      The 1st respondent, All India Reporter Limited, was not served with  any individual notice by the Tribunal before it passed its  award. The  1st respondent  also did  not send a reply to  the questionnaire  issued by  the Tribunal  nor it gave any  evidence before  the Tribunal  in respect  of  the matters  referred  to  therein.  However  on  15.7.1981  and 3.8.1981 the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Nagpur wrote to the 1st respondent  asking it  to file its written statements in the matter of non-implementation of the Palekar Award as the orders of  the Central  Government made  under section 12 of the  Act   were  popularly   called.  The  first  respondent submitted its  reply in  October, 1981 inter alia contending that it  was  not  running  a  newspaper  establishment  and publications  published   by  the   company  were   not  the newspapers and  as such the Palekar Award was not applicable to it.  Again on  18th  November,  1982  the  Deputy  Labour Commissioner, Nagpur  wrote a  letter to  the Manager of the 1st respondent  informing him  that the  1st respondent  was liable to implement the order of the Central Government made on the recommendations of the Palekar Tribunal in respect of its employees  since the  Ist  respondent  was  a  newspaper establishment. Immediately  after the  service of  the  said notice the Ist respon- 781 dent filed  a writ petition on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition No. 2388 of 1982  questioning the validity of the notice served on it by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Nagpur calling upon it to implement the  orders of the Central Government on the basis of the award of the Palekar Tribunal. Initially the State of Maharashtra, the  Commissioner  of  Labour  and  the  Deputy Labour  Commissioner,   Nagpur   had   been   impleaded   as respondents. Thereafter  during the  pendency  of  the  Writ Petition the  Indian Federation  of Working  Journalists and the All  India Reporter  Karamachari Sangh were impleaded as respondents in the writ petition.      It was urged before the High Court on behalf of the Ist respondent, All India Reporter Limited, that the law reports publised by it were not newspapers as defined in the Act and therefore the  order made  by the  Central Government on the basis of  the recommendations  of Justice  Palekar were  not applicable to its establishment. The High Court accepted the plea of the Ist respondent and declared that the law reports were not  newspapers within  the meaning  of section 2(b) of the Act  and that  the demand  made  by  the  Deputy  Labour Commissioner to  comply with  the order  made by the Central Government on  the basis  of the  recommendations of Justice Palekar was  unsustainable by its judgment dated 22nd April, 1983. Aggrieved  by the  decision  of  the  High  Court  the appellants have filed this appeal by special leave.      The  Ist   respondent,  All   India  Reporter  Limited, publishes in  addition to  the law  reports referred  in the first  paragraph   of  this  judgment  several  other  books commentaries, digests  and manuals.  But we are concerned in this case  with the  narrow question  whether  the  six  law reports which  are being published by the Ist respondent are newspapers within  the meaning  of the  Act and  whether the employees engaged  in their  production or  distribution are entitled to  the benefit  of the  orders made by the Central

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

Government on  the  basis  of  the  recommendations  of  the Palekar Tribunal.      The  definition   of  the  expression  "newspaper"  has already been  set out  above. In  order to  be a newspaper a work must  be a  (i) printed  work; (ii)  a periodical;  and (iii) should contain public news or comments on public news. Any other class of printed periodical work as may, from time to  time,   be  notified  in  this  behalf  by  the  Central Government in  the Official Gazette may also be a newspaper. There is no dispute in the present case that the law reports are printed  works and  that they  are periodicals. The only question which remains to be 782 considered is  whether they  contain public news or comments on public news.      Entry 39  of List  III of  the Seventh  Schedule to the Constitution reads  thus: "Newspapers,  books  and  printing presses."  Newspapers  and  books  are  no  doubt  shown  as separate items  but the  distinction between  them sometimes becomes very thin or totally vanishes. In this connection it is necessary  to reproduce  a passage from the Report of the Royal Commission  on the  Press (1947-49)  appointed by  the British Government  and presided  over by  Sir William David Ross. It reads thus:                "The newspaper  and periodical Press of Great           Britain  consists   of  over   4,000  publications           ranging  from  newspapers  famous  throughout  the           world to  the journals  of obscure  societies. Its           limits are ill-defined, for there is no definition           of  either   ‘newspaper’  or   ‘periodical’  which           enables each  to be  infallibly distinguished from           the other and from publications which are properly           speaking neither.  The term ‘newspaper’ is usually           applied (except  so far  as concerns the important           class of trade newspapers) to publications devoted           mainly   to    recording   current   events,   and           ‘periodicals’ to  magazines, reviews, and journals           which, in  so  far  as  they  are  concerned  with           current events  at all,  are concerned  to comment           rather than  to report;  but newspapers merge into           advertising sheets,  periodicals  into  books  and           pamphlets, and both into one another; ....."      The expression  "news"  is  not  defined  in  the  Act. Several definitions  of the expression "news" collected from the different  dictionaries  and  digests  have  been  cited before us.  It is  enough if  we refer to the meaning of the word "news"  given in  the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary for purposes  of  this  case.  It  says  that  "news"  means tidings, new  information of  recent events; new occurrences as a  subject of  report or  talk. The law reports which are being published  by the Ist respondent are reports of recent decisions of  the Supreme  Court of  India and  of the  High Courts in  India which  are supplied  to it  by  its  agents appointed at  New Delhi  and other  places where High Courts are situated. It cannot be disputed that these decisions are of  public  importance.  Article  141  of  the  Constitution provides that  the law  declared by  Supreme Court  shall be binding on  all courts  within the  territory of India. Even apart from  Article 141 of the Constitution the decisions of the Supreme Court, which is a court of record, constitute a 783 source of  law as  they are  the judicial  precedents of the highest court  of the  land. They  are binding  on  all  the courts throughout  India. Similarly  the decisions  of every High Court  being judicial  precedents are  binding  on  all

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

courts situated  in the  territory over which the High Court exercises   jurisdiction.   Those   decisions   also   carry persuasive value before courts which are not situated within its territory. The decisions of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts  are almost  as important as statutes, rules and regulations passed  by the  competent legislatures and other bodies since  they affect  the public generally. It is well- known that  the decisions  of the superior courts while they settle the  disputes between  the parties to the proceedings in which  they are  given they  are the sources of law in so far as  all others  are concerned.  As soon as a decision is rendered the  members of  the public  would be interested in knowing it.  At any  rate lawyers  and others connected with courts and judicial proceedings who constitute a substantial section of the public are interested in knowing the contents and the  effect of  the decisions.  The Ist  respondent, All India Reporter  Limited, and other publishers of law reports in the  interests of  their own business vie with each other to publish the judgments of the Supreme Court or of the High Courts as  early as  possible in their law reports which are published  periodically   either  weekly,   fortnightly   or monthly.  They   believe  that   faster  the  decisions  are published in  their reports,  larger will  be the  number of subscribers. Infact  we have a law report which is published from Delhi  which publishes  the judgments  rendered by  the Supreme Court within a day or two. The contents of these law reports constitute  news insofar  as the subscribers and the readers of  these reports  are concerned.  It is  by reading these law  reports they  come to  know of  the latest  legal position prevailing  in the  country on any question decided in the  decisions reported  in the said reports. Hence it is difficult to agree with the submission made on behalf of the Ist respondent  that the  law reports  do not carry any news and that the public is not interested in them. We are of the view that  any decision  published in the law reports of the Ist respondent  contain information  about the recent events which have  taken place  in the Supreme Court or in the High Courts which  are public  bodies and  these are  matters  in which the public is interested. We find it also difficult to agree  with  the  submission  made  on  behalf  of  the  Ist respondent that  since the  law  reports  are  going  to  be preserved by  the lawyers  as reference  books after getting them rebound  subsequently they  should be treated as books. It may  be that the decisions contained in these law reports may cease  to be items of news after some time but when they are  received   by  the  subscribers  they  do  possess  the character of works containing news. 784      Strong  reliance  was  placed  on  behalf  of  the  Ist respondent on  the decision  of the  High Court of Orissa in P.S.V. Iyer  v. Commissioner  of Sales Tax, Orissa, AIR 1960 Orissa  221   in  which   the  question   that   arose   for consideration was  whether a  law journal-Cuttack Law Times, which was  a non-official  monthly  journal  containing  the decisions of  the Orissa  High Court,  the Orissa  Board  of Revenue and also of the Supreme Court was a newspaper and if it  was  a  newspaper  whether  it  was  competent  for  the Legislature of  the State of Orissa to levy sales tax on the sale of  the said  journal. The  said question arose in that form in  view of  the language of Entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution which read as follows:           "54. Taxes  on the sale or purchase of goods other           than newspapers, subject to Entry 92-A of List I."      The language  of Entry  92 of  List I  of  the  Seventh Schedule to  the Constitution  which conferred on Parliament

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

alone the power to tax sale or purchase of newspapers was in the following terms:           "92. Tax on the sale or purchase of newspapers and           on advertisements published therein." After  referring   to  the   definition  of  the  expression ‘newspaper’ in  the Press  and Registration  of  Books  Act, 1867, the  Indian Post  Offices Act, 1898, the Parliamentary Proceedings  (Protection  of  Publication)  Act,  1956,  the Delivery of  Books and  Newspapers Act,  1956 the  Newspaper (Price and  Page) Act,  1956, etc.  the High Court of Orissa held that  the Cuttack Law Times was not a newspaper because according to  it the necessary pre-requisite of a periodical in order  to make  it a newspaper was that it should contain mainly publicnews  or comments on public news and that books containing authoritative reports for future reference could, by no  means, be  said to  contain  news  so  as  to  become newspaper. Accordingly,  the High  Court of Orissa held that the sale of Cuttack Law Times, which according to it was not a newspaper,  could be  taxed by the State Legislature under Entry  54  of  List  II  of  the  Seventh  Schedule  to  the Constitution of  India. We  find it  difficult to agree with the above decision since the High Court of Orissa omitted to take  into   consideration  that  information  about  recent decisions of  courts of  record could  be news  in which the public was  interested. The  fact that a law report could be used as  a reference  book at later stage was not sufficient to hold that the law report did not contain public news when it was received by the subscriber. 785      The High  Court of  Madras declined to follow the above decision of  the Orissa  High Court  in its decision in T.V. Ramnath and  Another v.  Union of  India and  Others, [1975] Labour and  Industrial Cases  488 in  which the  Madras  Law Journal, a  law report published from Madras, was held to be a newspaper  and the  establishment in  which the  said  law report was  being published  was a  newspaper  establishment which attracted  the provisions  of that  Act. We agree with the following  observations made  in the  said  decision  by Ismail, J. (as he then was):           "Similarly, the  publications of the petitioner in           the second  writ petition  can be  said to contain           ‘public news’  or ‘comments  on public news’ since           it contains reports of the judgments of the Courts           as  well  as  comments  on  such  judgments.  Even           though, the  same may  be primarily  intended  for           that section of the public which is concerned with           law and  the administration of law, in the present           days, nothing  prevents  any  educated  individual           taking interest  in such publications and the news           themselves being  of  interest  to  such  persons.           Therefore I  am clearly  of the  opinion that  the           expression ‘public  news’ is  of sufficiently wide           amplitude to  cover the  publications of  both the           petitioners in question."      It is seen that the editor of the law report containing the above decision has appended an editorial comment on this stating that this decision is wrong and that the Orissa High Court’s decision  was right.  Justice A.N. Grover, who later became a  Judge of  the  Supreme  Court  of  India  and  the Chairman of  the Press  Council, as  a Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High  Court held  in L.D.  Jain v.  General Manager, Government of India Press and Others, I.L.R. 1967 Punjab and Haryana 193 that the Gazette of India which was the official publication of  all kinds  of news  and  information  was  a newspaper within  the meaning of section 2(b) of the Working

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

Journalists  (Conditions   of  Service)   and  Miscellaneous Provisions Act,  1955 and  that it  was not  essential for a newspaper to  conform strictly  to the  usual pattern  of  a daily  or   weekly  or   monthly  newspaper  or  a  magazine containing news  which members of the public ordinarily read in order  to get  reports of recent events, comments on them etc. In  doing so,  he distinguished  the  decision  of  the Australian Court in Ex Parte Stillwell, [1923] 29 V.L.R. 413 in which  the Bradshaw’s  Guide was  held to  be a  book  of reference which lacked every element of what could be called a newspaper on which the Orissa High Court had relied.      The Ist  respondent cannot  derive any  assistance from the deci- 786 sion of the High Court of Bombay in Commissoner of Sales Tax v. M/s. Express Printing Press, AIR 1983 Bombay 191 in which the Bombay High Court held that the two publications by name ‘Jocker’  and   ‘Jabara’  which   contained  predictions  or forecasts of  lucky numbers  were not newspapers since those publications had  nothing to  do with any recent event which had taken place.      In the Annual Report of the Registrar of Newspapers for India, 1957  there is  an interesting  discussion of certain specific  cases   in  which   the   question   whether   the publications involved  were newspapers or not. In the course of the said report it is obversed thus:                "In  this   connection  the  Press  Registrar           scrutinised reports  published in  certain foreign           countries regarding  their own  Press and  it  was           noticed that  in the  catalogues prepared  by them           specialised  newspapers  such  as  the  one  under           consideration were  not excluded  from the list of           newspapers.  Even   technical  journals   such  as           medical periodicals, journals related to sciences,           arts etc.,  were included. A catalogue of Yugoslav           newspapers and  magazines, for  instance, includes           publications relating to the following subjects:                Political  information;  economics;  law  and           states   administration;   education;   philology;           natural    sciences;     medicine;    agriculture;           technology;   geography;    ethnography   history;           archives; archaeology;  literature; music; applied           art;  film;  chess;  photography;  tourism;  stamp           collecting; physical culture and sport; humour and           religion.                In a catalogue of Russian papers for 1958 all           the above categories of newspapers and periodicals           have been  included in  addition  to  many  others           which deal exclusively with party affairs."      It is  significant that  the expression  ‘newspaper’ as defined in  the Act  includes not  merely ‘public  news’ but also ‘comments  on public  news’. Every  law report contains the editorial  note at  the commencement  of  the  decisions printed therein  and also  comments on  some of  the  recent decisions. Law  reports also  contain,  newly  enacts  Acts, Rules  and  Regulations,  book  reviews  and  advertisements relating to  law books  handwriting and finger print experts etc., speeches  made  at  conferences  in  which  the  legal fraternity is interested etc. Though the 787 publication of  these items  by  itself  may  not  occupy  a substantial part of a law report to make it a newspaper, the publication of  the recent judgments itself is sufficient to make a  law report  a newspaper  which may  after some  time cease to be a newspaper and become a book of reference.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

    The Act  in question  is a beneficent legislation which is enacted  for the  purpose of  improving the conditions of service of the employees of the newspaper establishments and hence even  if it  is possible  to have  two opinions on the construction of  the provisions  of the  Act the  one  which advances the  object of  the Act  and is  in favour  of  the employees for  whose benefit  the Act  is passed  has to  be accepted.      We are  of the  view that  the law reports published by the Ist respondent are newspapers and the employees employed by the  Ist respondent in their production or publication of the said  law reports  should be extended the benefit of the orders passed  by the Central Government on the basis of the recommendations made  by the Palekar Award. We, accordingly, allow the  appeal, set  aside the judgment of the High Court and dismiss  the writ  petition filed  by the Ist respondent before the  High Court.  There will, however, be no order as to costs. S.L.                                    Appeal allowed. 788