The Hindustan Times Limited vs Sh. Arun Kumar & Ors on 3 June, 2010
Showing the contexts in which working journalist act doctypes: delhi appears in the document
Industrial Law. The respondent no.1, immediately prior to the termination of his employment, wasworking as Special Correspondent for North-East India Region at Shillong in Meghalaya of the Hindustan Times newspaper published by the petitioner. There is no controversy qua the fact that the respondent no.1 was a working journalist and / or a newspaper employee within the meaning of The Working Journalists & Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955. There is also no controversy that as per Section 3 of theWorking Journalists Act, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 apply to, or in relation to, working journalists as they apply to, or in relation to, workman within the meaning of the ID Act. It was in these circumstances that the dispute aforesaid between the petitioner and the respondent no.1 was referred to the Labour Court. W.P.(C)3482/2003 Page 2 of 24 3. The factual matrix is as under:- (i) The respondent no.1, on completion of one year training on 30th November, 1973, was vide letter dated 6th December, 1973 of the petitioner appointed in the Hindustan Times Group with effect from 1st December
Page 13 of 24 as to whether the respondent no.1 was guilty of misconduct or not. (x) Attention is invited to Section 14 of the Working Journalists Act making the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 applicable to every newspaper establishment employing 20 or more employees. It is thus contended that the Labour Court wrongly held that the Standing Orders were not relevant. (xi) It is urged that the action of respondent no.1 of leaving the station, which he was exclusively covering, without anybody to relieve him is a serious misconduct. (xii) That the respondent no.1 in his cross examination had admitted that the first and the only time the medical certificates were sent by him was on 7th March, 1991. (xiii) The reasoning of the Labour Court of the respondent no.1 not being able to get a job because of the public notice is preposterous. (xiv) Portions of the evidence are read to show that the respondent no.1 was not interested inworking at Shillong. W.P.(C)3482/2003 Page 14 of 24 (xv) It is contended that the entitlement, if any, of the respondent no.1 to compensation
fact that the respondent no.1 has in all these years not worked for the petitioner and the principle of no work no pay is also sought to be invoked. 12. The counsel for the respondent no.1 has argued: (i) That as per Clause 10 of the letter of appointment of the respondent no.1, the conditions of service of the respondent no.1 are to be governed by the Working Journalists Act. Section 16 of the Working Journalists Act gives the provisions of the Act an overriding effect over anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law or in the terms of any award, agreement or contract of service. (ii) Attention is also invited to the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Rules, 1957, as per Rule 38 whereof the said Rules also have an overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other Rule or agreement or contract of service applicable to a working journalist. W.P.(C)3482/2003 Page 15 of 24 (iii) Attention is invited to Chapter V of the Rules dealing with "Leave" and it is contended that the leave of working journalists, as the respondent
having been recorded or communicated, the respondent no.1 became entitled to leave in terms of his application dated 15th December, 1990 believed by the Labour Court. (iv) On the plea of the respondent no.1 being dissatisfied with his posting at Shillong, it is contended that the respondent no.1 prior to 1990 had worked in Shillong for 2 ½ years without any leave whatsoever. (v) It is contended that the petitioner nowhere states as to when the respondent no.1 had abandoned his services. It is urged that overstaying leave is not a misconduct under the Working JournalistsAct and Rules. (vi) Reliance is placed on Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Lakshmidevamma AIR 2001 SC 2090 to contend that the request for proving misconduct before the W.P.(C)3482/2003 Page 16 of 24 Industrial Adjudicator, in the event of the domestic enquiry conducted being held to be invalid, has to be made at the earliest point of time i.e. in the written statement and which had not been done in the present case. (vii) It is argued that no case of abandonment is made out in the facts and circumstances aforesaid. (viii) With
Page 13 of 24 as to whether the respondent no.1 was guilty of misconduct or not. (x) Attention is invited to Section 14 of the Working Journalists Act making the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 applicable to every newspaper establishment employing 20 or more employees. It is thus contended that the Labour Court wrongly held that the Standing Orders were not relevant. (xi) It is urged that the action of respondent no.1 of leaving the station, which he was exclusively covering, without anybody to relieve him is a serious misconduct. (xii) That the respondent no.1 in his cross examination had admitted that the first and the only time the medical certificates were sent by him was on 7th March, 1991. (xiii) The reasoning of the Labour Court of the respondent no.1 not being able to get a job because of the public notice is preposterous. (xiv) Portions of the evidence are read to show that the respondent no.1 was not interested inworking at Shillong. W.P.(C)3482/2003 Page 14 of 24 (xv) It is contended that the entitlement, if any, of the respondent no.1 to compensation
fact that the respondent no.1 has in all these years not worked for the petitioner and the principle of no work no pay is also sought to be invoked. 12. The counsel for the respondent no.1 has argued: (i) That as per Clause 10 of the letter of appointment of the respondent no.1, the conditions of service of the respondent no.1 are to be governed by the Working Journalists Act. Section 16 of the Working Journalists Act gives the provisions of the Act an overriding effect over anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law or in the terms of any award, agreement or contract of service. (ii) Attention is also invited to the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Rules, 1957, as per Rule 38 whereof the said Rules also have an overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other Rule or agreement or contract of service applicable to a working journalist. W.P.(C)3482/2003 Page 15 of 24 (iii) Attention is invited to Chapter V of the Rules dealing with "Leave" and it is contended that the leave of working journalists, as the respondent
having been recorded or communicated, the respondent no.1 became entitled to leave in terms of his application dated 15th December, 1990 believed by the Labour Court. (iv) On the plea of the respondent no.1 being dissatisfied with his posting at Shillong, it is contended that the respondent no.1 prior to 1990 had worked in Shillong for 2 ½ years without any leave whatsoever. (v) It is contended that the petitioner nowhere states as to when the respondent no.1 had abandoned his services. It is urged that overstaying leave is not a misconduct under the Working JournalistsAct and Rules. (vi) Reliance is placed on Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Lakshmidevamma AIR 2001 SC 2090 to contend that the request for proving misconduct before the W.P.(C)3482/2003 Page 16 of 24 Industrial Adjudicator, in the event of the domestic enquiry conducted being held to be invalid, has to be made at the earliest point of time i.e. in the written statement and which had not been done in the present case. (vii) It is argued that no case of abandonment is made out in the facts and circumstances aforesaid. (viii) With
No comments:
Post a Comment