cpc

eligible for gratuity


dear ejaz bhai iam thankful to you for sending the citation but the citation didnot anywhere speaks about the regular news contributor on contract basis.Actually iam from the management side. i will once again explain you in brief about my case.

1.'A' is working in a company 'B' which is newspaper publisher as a regular news contributor  on contract basis.

2. in the yesr 2005 he was terminated automatically ,as his contract period has completed and he was terminated by efflux of time.

3.subsequently he filed a case under the authority of P.G.Act  claiming gratuity and other amounts.

My question is whether regular news contributor will comes under the definitionof employee under W.J.Act or I.D act because his contract specifically says that 

(i)his principal avocation is not that of journalist under the act.

ii)there is no employer employee relationship

iii)his contract period will extinguishes as and when the specific period will be completed which is mentioned inthe contract(if not renued further)

there are some of the cases in our favour(employer) adjudicated by the labour courts on this point that the regular news contributor on contract basis will not come under the meaning of employee and he is not eligible for the compentation/compentation.

inthis regard i am in need of some supremecourt/highcourt judgments which favours the management/employer/company to defend.

 
Reply   
 
Legal Consultant/Lawyer

Dear Shasidhar,


I think as per your earlier query, I correctly provided you a Ruling: 


FIRST POINT


Your earlier query is :  


"  Pls clarify,


 1. can a regular news contributor on contract basis will come under the meaning of employee under W.J.ACT and I.D.ACT.


2. A regular news contributor  on contract basis who has been terminated from the services automatically by efflux of time   .ie. after expiry of his contract period can claim gratuity from the company/employer "


In that query I had provided to you with a Ruling : 


http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1924608/



Business Manager, Andhra Printers Ltd. vs Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court And Anr. on 4 August, 1992



In which is it is held that:


" 2. The 2nd respondent in the writ petition was the applicant before the Labour Court. He was a part-time Correspondent of Andhra Jyothi daily newspaper at Warangal. The 2nd respondent who was being paid a consolidated salary had claimed before the Labour Court scales of pay, Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance, Variable Dearness Allowance, Bonus and wages in lieu of earned leave, for the period between 1975 and 1986. The Management (petitioner herein) apart from denying entitlement of the petitioner to the monetary benefits claimed, took the plea that the remedy of the 2nd respondent lies under the provisions of the W.J. Act but not under the I.D. Act. The Labour Court rejected this plea of the Management recording its conclusion as follows :



"  In view of the decision of the Karnataka High Court reported in 1982 - I - LLJ page 189, in view of the use of the words "without prejudice to any other mode of recovery" in Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists Act, in view of the scope of Section 33-C(2) of I.D. Act and in view of the fact that this Court alone has to decide the dispute between the parties either in a reference made by the Government or on a petition filed by the petitioner, I am of the opinion that M.P. 115/87 filed by petitioner is maintainable. Hence this petition is dismissed."

 


It is against this order of the Labour Court in I.A. No. 274/87 dated November 27, 1987 that the present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the order of the Labour Court.

 


....the impugned order of the Labour Court is unassailable. The writ petition therefore fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.


Further, in the above Judgement it is Observed and made a brief  reference about Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955    as follows:


"  To resolve this controversy, it is necessary to make a brief reference to the relevant provision of the W.J. Act. As the preamble says, it is an Act to regulate certain conditions of service of working journalists and other persons employed in newspaper establishments.  'Newspaper employee' is defined to mean any working journalist, and includes any other person employed to do any work in or in relation to any newspaper establishment (Vide Clause (c) of Section 2); 'Working journalist' is defined to mean 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, reporter, etc. (Vide Clause (f) of S. 2). The bracketed words were substituted by Act 36 of 1981 with effect from August 13, 1980 in the place of the words "who is employed as such in or in relation to any newspaper establishment"."


 " The Act also makes a provision for payment of gratuity on the termination, retirement, resignation or death of a working journalist without prejudice to any benefits or rights accruing under the Industrial Disputes Act. Restrictions on the hours of work of the working journalists are prescribed by the Act "


So, as per W.J. Act , it is crystal clear that, "NEWSPAPER  EMPLOYEE" includes "...... any other person employed to do any work in or in relation to any newspaper establishment "


SECOND POINT


In your erlier query did you mentioned that, you are on behalf of either  "EMPLOYEE"  OR   "MANAGEMENT".


CONCLUDING POINT


And now, by this Second Query,


and importantly


" BY BLAMING ME THAT, I DIDN'T PROVIDED YOU WITH CORRECT AND RELATED RULING"


" dear ejaz bhai iam thankful to you for sending the citation but the citation didnot anywhere speaks about the regular news contributor on contract basis. "



You are simply representing that, " Actually i am from the management side."



LAST BUT NOT LEAST POINT:


"Sorry Mr. Shashidhar don't take the above SERIOUSLY"


I will try my level best, if possible, to provide a relavant Judgment as required by you.


"ONCE AGAIN SORRY"

 
Reply   
 



dear aejaz bhai my intention was not to hurt you because iam new to this club i didn't know how to react  and this is happened with pure ignorence and it is neither intentional nor wantonly.


aejaz bhai you are amazing your services are unexplainable and your contribution to the club is praiseworthy and iam very happy and fortunate that iam part of the club and iam confident  and happy that my queries are getting solved by the club ,thank you. and i also praise you for playing  the key role in resolving the queries.


LAST BUT NOT LEAST " IAM SORRY " AND  FORGIVEME.thank you.

 
Reply   
 

LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

  Search Forum








×

Menu

IPC Grand Course     |    x