The Aryavarth Express
Agency(Bombay): In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court clarified that journalists working in Maharashtra do not qualify as “employees” under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act), thereby rendering them ineligible to lodge complaints of unfair labor practices within the framework of this Act.
Justices Nitin Jamdar and Sandeep Marne, presiding over the division bench, reached their decision following a query forwarded by a Single Judge regarding the admissibility of complaints from working journalists and newspaper entities against orders issued by the Industrial Court.
The Court specified that according to the definitions provided in Section 3 of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, working journalists do not fall under the “employee” category as per the MRTU & PULP Act’s Section 3(5). Consequently, the Act does not accommodate their grievances regarding unfair labor practices.
The bench highlighted that journalists possess ample protections under the Working Journalists Act, alongside the dispute resolution mechanisms available under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act).
This judgment emerged in the context of three separate petitions – two involving mutual legal challenges between Dainik Bhaskar and one of its journalists, and a third by Pioneer Book, a newspaper company, contesting an Industrial Court’s support of a Labour Court decision in favor of a journalist. The Single Judge had observed inconsistencies in past rulings of the Bombay High Court concerning the standing of journalists’ complaints, prompting a review by a larger bench.
The core issue examined was whether journalists, protected under the specific provisions of the Working Journalists Act, could be regarded as employees within the MRTU & PULP Act’s ambit, which typically identifies an employee based on the ID Act’s definition of a workman.
Journalists argued for entitlement to benefits from both Acts, citing the inclusion of ID Act’s provisions within the Working Journalists Act. In contrast, the newspaper companies contended that the Working Journalists Act forms a self-contained regulation for journalists, with its provisions not extending to the MRTU & PULP Act.
Concurring with the newspaper establishments, the Court asserted that the Working Journalists Act offers a unique framework of rights and privileges for journalists. It limited the application of the ID Act’s provisions to the resolution of employment disputes concerning journalists, thereby rejecting the extension of these provisions to the MRTU & PULP Act.
The Court further reasoned that had the intention been to include journalists under the MRTU & PULP Act’s employee definition, explicit language would have been used, similar to the inclusion of sales promotion employees.
Concluding that journalists are not considered employees under the MRTU & PULP Act, the Court directed that the petitions be returned to the Single Judge for further proceedings, reinforcing the special legal standing of working journalists within the realms of their professional safeguards and dispute resolution avenues.