Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Employees Union v. K.M Desai And Others

Ashok Agarwal, J.:— Maintainability of an application filed by respondent 2 union, under S. 11 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the MRTU and PULP Act), is questioned in the present petition. Similarly the order passed by respondent 1, who is a Member of the Industrial Court, holding that the application is maintainable is also impugned in the present petition.

2. The matter pertains to respondent 3, Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (Private), Ltd. It is a Newspaper establishment, publishing the Indian Express and the Financial Express which are English dailies, Loksatta, which is a Marathi daily and Samakalin, a Gujarati daily. It also publishes English weekly Screen and Marathi weekly Lokprabha.

3. The petitioners are a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, and have been representing the working journalists and non-journalists employed with respondent 3 since 1953. It claims to have as its members an overwhelming majority of the employees of respondent 3. In 1981, respondent 2, Maharashtra General Kamgar Union, which is also a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act, enrolled some of the employees of respondent 3, as its members. On 31 January 1983 respondent 2 filed an application in the Industrial Court for recognition of itself in respondent 3 company. The application was numbered as application MRTU No. 6 of 1983.

4. The petitioners, by their written statement, opposed the grant of application and claimed recognition for themselves. Respondent 3 also filed its written statement. The parties thereafter filed documents in support of their case. Amongst documents filed by respondent 2 was its constitution and Rules, under which it functions. On perusing the Constitution the petitioners found that Sch. A to the objects of the Constitution did not bear an entry of the newspaper establishment or newspaper industry. The petitioners, therefore, on 11 March 1986 filed an application raising a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the application filed by respondent 2. In the application the petitioners contended that as the Constitution of respondent 2 did not permit it to enroll employees from the newspaper industry as its members, respondents 2 could not represent employees of respondent 3 and hence the application for recognition was not maintainable. Respondent 2 filed its reply to the application inter alia stating that since they could enroll members from printing presses they could enroll employees of respondent 3 as their members.

5. By a judgment and order, dated 27 August 1986 respondent 1 came to the conclusion that Sch. A of Cl. 2(a) of the Constitution of respondent 2 did not use the word “newspaper establishment” or “newspaper industry.” He further held that as there was no entry in the Bombay Trade Unions Regulations, 1927, as newspaper industry, respondent 2 could not have mentioned newspaper industry in its constitution. He concluded that the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, provides for conditions of service for working journalists and riot for all workers working in a printing press, and hence a narrow meaning could not be given to the word “printing press.” He further held that as other publication which did not constitute a newspaper were also printed by respondent 3, it could not be considered as newspaper establishment and respondent 2 could enroll employees of respondent 3 as its members. Consequent upon the findings, the application of respondent 2, under s. 11 of the mrtu and pulp act was held as maintainable.

6. Taking exception to the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

The short question that arises for consideration is whether respondent 2 is entitled, under the terms of its constitution, to enroll as its members journalists and non-journalists employed by respondent 3. A copy of the constitution of respondent 2 is annexed at Exhibit A to the petition. The objects of respondent 2 as is evident from the constitution, is to organise and unite the persons employed in the industries mentioned in Sch. A and to regulate their relations with their employers. Then follows Sch. A which describes the industries whose employees respondent 2-union can seek to introduce within itself as its members in order to regulate their relations with their employers. Amongst the industries mentioned is the industry or printing press. It is apparent that the industry of newspapers and journals is conspicuously absent. Hence the short question which falls for our consideration is whether respondent 2 can legitimately enroll the employees of respondent 3 as its members on the strength of the entry “printing press.” In this context it has to be noticed that respondent 3, which is a newspaper industry, apart from publishing daily newspapers, it also publishes weeklies. It, no doubt, uses a printing press for the purpose of publishing. That, however, is not the entire function of respondent 3. It is only one of its functions. Apart from the printing press, it has journalists as also non-journalists in their employment. Respondent 3 is a newspaper industry and it cannot be termed as part and parcel of printing press. In this context our attention is drawn to the list of industries appended to the Bombay Trade Union Regulations, 1927. At serial No. 28, we have an entry “printing, publishing and allied industries.” It is next pointed out that as far as the constitution of respondent 2 is concerned, it has included the industry of printing press and has omitted “publishing and allied industries.” In our view, the omission is significant. What has been included is merely the business of printing press. It has not included within its compass the industry of newspaper which could have fallen in the entry “printing, publishing and allied industries.” The publishing of newspapers has several functions apart from the function of printing. Hence merely because the printing press is one of the components of newspaper industry, it cannot be gain said that the entire newspaper industry is nothing other than a printing press. A printing press may be included in a newspaper industry. It may be one of the functions of a newspaper industry. However, a newspaper industry cannot be equaled with the “printing press” industry as publication of newspaper and periodical involves many more functions than are involves in printing. A printing press industry cannot include within its compass all the employees of respondent 3 who includes journalists and non-journalists who may have no role to play in the printing of newspapers and journals being published by respondent 3. In the circumstances, we constrained to hold that the constitution of respondent 2 does not permit it to enroll journalists and non-journalists employed by respondent 3 as its members. This being the position, what follows is that the application of respondent 2 for recognition of its union under s. 11 of the mrtu & pulp act is not maintainable. The impugned order passed by respondent 1, taking a contrary view is thus liable to be set aside. In view of our finding that the application of respondent 2, is not maintainable, the application, being application (MRTU) 6 of 1983 is also liable to be dismissed.

7. In the result, the petition succeeds and the rule is made absolute.

8. The impugned order, dated 27 August 1986, passed by respondent 1 in Application (MRTU) 6 of 1983 is set aside. The application of respondent 2 filed under S. 11 for recognition of its union is found as not maintainable and consequently the aforesaid application is dismissed.

9. As far as the claim of the petitioner for being registered as a recognised union is concerned, the same will now be considered by the Industrial Court on its own merits and in accordance with law.

10. Respondent 2 will pay the petitioners the costs of the present petition.