Working journalist not employee under Maharashtra Unfair Labour Practices Act: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently held that a working journalist would not be considered an employee under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU Act) [Indrakumar Jain v. Dainik Bhaskar & Anr and connected petitions]..Consequently, the Court concluded that a complaint by a working journalist under the MRTU Act was not maintainable before an industrial court..A division bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and Sandeep Marne observed that working journalists constitute a distinct class with unique privileges under the Working Journalists Act, and the rules framed thereunder.“Working journalists constitute a distinct class with unique privileges and protections in their employment. This recognition of special status, distinct from other workmen, has been upheld based on the premise that working journalists form a separate category," the Court observed in its February 29 judgment.The Court proceeded to clarify that working journalists would not, therefore, fall under the category of "employee" or "workman" under the MRTU Act. Rather, the Court explained that disputes concerning working journalists can be settled by opting for the mechanisms laid down in the Industrial Disputes Act. .The judgment was passed on a reference to the division bench by a single judge, who had found that there were conflicting judgments on whether journalists could be considered employees or workmen under the MRTU Act..The questions arose on petitions concerning journalists, Devendra Pratap Singh (working in Pioneer Book newspaper establishment) and Indrakumar Jain (journalist in Dainik Bhaskar) and the management of Dainik Bhaskar..The petitions were filed before the High Court after industrial courts rejected complaints filed by the working journalists on the ground that working journalists did not fall within the term of "employee" or "workman" under the MRTU Act..The newspaper management argued that the reference by the single judge to a division bench was not required as there was no conflict in decisions..The division bench agreed with the submission and held that there was a conclusive decision on the issue in August 2015 by the Bombay High Court in the case of Shashikaran Shrivastava v. Bennet Coleman. However, it proceeded to decide the question of law as dealt with in the 2015 judgment..The Court observed that once the working journalists are placed in a different class, they cannot make grievances regarding the same.“By advancing various technical arguments, what the Journalist are attempting to do is to acquire rights available to other workmen on the basis they are similarly situated, without relinquishing their special privilege, which are not available to other workmen. The scheme of the governing legislations do not permit the same,” the Court said, in the judgment uploaded on March 4..The Court went on to hold that complaints filed by working journalists under the MRTU Act would not be maintainable because they enjoy being of special class, and are not employees for the purposes of the said Act.“The status of working journalists remains distinct from that of regular workmen due to the retention of their special privileges. The contention of working journalists seeking to assert themselves as employees, thereby enabling them to file complaints of unfair labor practices and avail of collective bargaining, aims at expanding their rights while preserving their special privileges. However, this course of action will contradict the combined reading of the governing statutes," the Court observed..Senior advocate Sanjay Singhvi with advocates Bannet D’Costa and Jignasha Pandya appeared for Indrakumar Jain, a journalist.Advocates Anand R Pai, Pratik Kothari and Avinash Patil appeared for Dainik Bhaskar.Advocates Vijay Vaidya, Mahendra Agvekar and Shraddha Chavan appeared for Pioneer Book Co.Advocates Jane Cox and Karishma Rao appeared for the journalist, Devendra Pratap Singh..[Read Judgment]