Choudhary S.N. Mishra, J.
1. In this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for quashing the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Patna, dated May 8, 1986, copy of the said award is made Annexure 1 to this writ application.
2. The petitioner claims to be the member of the registered union of the working journalists in the State of Bihar and working in Urdu daily newspapers published from Patna. The Union of India in the Ministry of Labour by notification, dated February 9, 1979, constituted a Tribunal under Section 13A(1) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for the purpose of fixing and revising the rates of wages. Similarly another Tribunal was constituted for non-journalist newspaper employees by notification, dated February 9, 1979 in terms of Section 13DD of the Act under the Chairmanship of Justice Sri PALEKAR, a retired Judge of the Supreme Court. The learned Judge submitted the award on August 13, 1980 which was accepted by Government of India vide notification, dated December 26, 1980. After acceptance of the award by the Government of India, the Katibs working in the daily Urdu newspapers published in Patna, persuaded their employer to pay the same pay-scale and other benefits applicable to the calligraphist, as fixed by the Palekar award, on the ground that the Katibs are performing the same work as of calligraphist. The management refused to implement the Palekar award. The Joint Labour Commissioner held meeting with the representatives of the several daily newspapers in order to come to an amicable settlement. Ultimately, the Labour Commissioner communicated the decision of the meeting and advised the management to implement the Palekar award after treating the Katibs as calligraphists. Being aggrieved by the said direction of the Labour Commissioner the proprietors of such newspapers filed a writ petition before this Court being C.W.J.C. No. 3506 of 1981 and the High Court remitted the case back to the Labour Commissioner by its order, dated March 7, 1984, with an observation to refer the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. Pursuant thereto, the Government of Bihar in the Department of Labour, Employment and Training vide notification, dated June 28, 1985, referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, which was registered as reference Case No. 3 of 1985, for adjudication in the following terms:
'Whether katibs are calligraphists and entitled to the pay-scale fixed for the calligraphists in the Palekar award? If not, what relief they are entitled to ?'
Pursuant to the notice received both the workman as well as the management filed their respective written statements before the Industrial Tribunal.
3. The case of the petitioner is that they being the katibs have been working as calligraphists for a long time but they are not being paid the wages and other benefits as per the Palekar award applicable to the calligraphists and they fulfilled and satisfied all the requirements of all the journalists and as such, they are entitled to the same pay-scale and other benefits applicable to the calligraphists, as recommended by the Palekar award. The management, however, has denied the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioners who are known as Katibs are not the working journalists and their job is to rewrite only. Their principal avocation is neither that of journalist nor they are doing any journalistic work. Their further case is that the Katibs are not the employees of the newspaper establishments nor they have been ever employed in any journalistic work. According to the management, they worked on contractual basis and, as such, there is no relationship of master and servant. Their wages are paid purely on the basis of the number of columns rewritten by them. In sum and substance, they not calligraphists and, as such, not entitled to the wages as calligraphists as per the Palekar award. The workmen as well as the management has examined altogether 7 witnesses each and produced various documentary evidences in support of their respective cases. On consideration of the evidence on record both oral and documentary the Tribunal has held in Para. 25 of its award as follows:
'(a) The concerned katibs do katabat for the respective newspaper establishments.
(b) They work on contract basis.
(c) They are paid on the basis of the columns they write.
(d) No duty hour is fixed for their work.
(e) They are free to do katabat in the office of the establishments or at home.
(f) They are not entitled to any leave or leave pay.
(g) These katibs work for the respective establishment and also for the other newspapers simultaneously.
(h) None of these katibs have got appointment letters from the respective newspaper establishments.'
On the aforesaid findings the Tribunal has answered the reference in negative. However, the Tribunal has accepted the alternative contention of the counsel appearing for the workman to the effect that though the katibs are no journalists or calligraphist even when then they are entitled to get wages for non-journalistic employees. The Tribunal, accordingly, allowed the pay-scale of non-journalists in the pay-scale of Rs. 425-594 which is the pay-scale prescribed under the Palekar award for the non-journalists employees.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the award on the ground firstly that the katibs being calligraphists is entitled to the wages prescribed by the Palekar award. Secondly it is submitted that it is not necessary for the katibs of being a main avocation of journalists and if they are performing some journalistic work they will come under the definition of calligraphists and, as such, entitle for the wages applicable to such calligraphists. Thirdly it is submitted that the method applied by the Tribunal in defining word 'artist' is different than what has been defined by the Palekar award. Lastly it is submitted that the Tribunal while discussing the evidence both oral and documentary has wrongly applied the principle of Evidence Act. In support of his contention learned counsel has relied upon a decision in the case of Daily Pratap v. Their Katibs reported in AIR 1972 SC 1872 : 1972 (2) SCC 342 : 1972-II-LLJ-247. In opposition, Sri Gupta learned counsel for the management, has submitted that the principal duty of the employees is to be considered. According to the Palekar award the calligraphists whose principal avocation of journalist are entitled to the wages prescribed under the award. The workman concerned is neither the calligraphist nor their principal avocation of journalist. They only perform the work of rewriting. Sum and substance of the argument of Sri Gupta is that the workmen concerned are neither artists nor journalists nor calligraphists as has been found on proper appreciation of the evidence by the Tribunal and, as such they are not entitled for the wages under the Palekar award. It is further submitted that the Tribunal on consideration of the evidence both oral and documentary has recorded the findings which cannot be interfered with by this Court in its writ jurisdiction. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decisions in the case of State of West Bengal v. Atul Krishna Shaw reported in A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 2205 : 1991 Supp (1) SCC 414 and in the case of Pratap Chandra Mohanty v. General Manager, United News of India reported in 1993 (2) L.L.N. 455.
5. In order to appreciate the rival contention of the parties the function of the workmen as found by the Tribunal on consideration of the evidence has to be considered. The newspapers are all printers and publishers of different Urdu newspapers located in the town of Patna. All the newspapers are registered under the provisions of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. It is admitted position that the system of printing of Urdu news is entirely different from the English and Hindi newspaper establishment. English and Hindi newspapers are printed by type but in case of Urdu newspapers printing is done by litho printing system. The Urdu news is printed by handwriting of katibs who rewrite the matters given to them by editorial or managerial section and after rewritten the matters are transferred on litho stones. The rewritten matters thereafter go to press. As stated above, the Palekar award was accepted by Government of India and on such acceptance the recommendation of the Tribunal is binding on all the newspapers. Palekar award classified newspaper establishments and grouping of working journalists. The Tribunal has also made grouping of non-working journalist newspapers employees and their wages were separately fixed. It is admitted position that the calligraphists were included in the category of working journalist but the katibs were not included anywhere in the award. Now the question arises as to whether the katibs are the calligraphists and if it is found that they are the calligraphists they would be certainly entitled for the wages in terms of the Palekar award. In order to become a calligraphist one must be an artist first; secondly he must perform the work of a journalists and lastly he also must calligraph matters for publication of the newspapers. In the light of the aforesaid definition of the calligraphist it is to be examined on the facts and the evidence available on record as to whether the workman is an artist and performing the work of journalist and the calligraphist the matters which are required to be published through the newspapers establishment, in question. In the Palekar award the artist and their function has also been defined. According to the award a person who prepares for publication, drawing layouts, maps, graphs or other similar embellishments, illustrations of any kind or of creative art. In order to become an artist one must do some or all of these functions. In order to satisfy the test of the aforesaid three requirements, the function of the workman has to be considered in the light of the evidence adduced before the Tribunal. The workmen in order to satisfy that they are artist, they have examined certain witnesses who have invariably stated that the printing matters come directly from the editorial section and after rewriting they are sent back to the editorial section for printing in the newspapers. It is no doubt stated in their evidence that they put the matter in such a manner so that they may look beautiful and attractive. It is further stated that the artistic work is done some time and in support of his contention he produced copy of the newspaper marked Exhibit 2, wherefrom it appears that some artistic work has been done in green ink. This witness has, however, stated in the cross-examination that the artistic work done in Exhibit 2 is not done regularly which is done once or twice in a month. The witness examined in behalf of the management has stated in his evidence that the alleged beautification of work on Exhibit 2 done by some outsider and not by workman concerned. Other witness of the management has stated that the artistic work of the newspapers was generally done by commercial artist and the workmen katibs have no capacity to do any artistic work in the newspaper. On examination of the evidence both oral and documentary the Tribunal has recorded finding that it has not been established that such artistic work Exhibit 2 was done by the workman but on perusal of they evidences of other witnesses it appears that there is absolutely no evidence adduced on behalf of the workmen that they prepare for publication, drawing, layout, maps, graphs and/or performing any kind of creative art. The witnesses have not stated anything that katibs are performing work of artist. Accordingly, on consideration of the evidence on record, I do not find any justification in coming to a different conclusion than what has been arrived at by the Tribunal on the question that the workmen are not the artist. Other test is as to whether the katibs are the journalists. Neither the Paleltar award nor in the Act, the term 'journalistic work' has been defined but however according to the Palekar award calligraphists fall in the category of working journalists and according to the award all the calligraphists perform the journalistic work. It has come on evidence that the katibs do not do their work independently or at their sweet-will but the matter sent to him directly from the editorial section when they rewrite and sent back to the editorial section for final publication. Dictionary meaning of journalist is a person who writes in a journal and in the daily newspapers and not merely the rewriting of the matter sent by the editorial section. The evidence has been led on behalf of the workman which goes to show that the katibs make correction in the matter received from the editorial section. One of the witnesses has admitted that the katibs make certain amendment if and when necessary. The witnesses examined on behalf of the workman have admitted that there is an editorial section in-one of the newspapers, namely, Sada-e-Aam where there is a proof reader and further stated that what is and how to be published in the newspapers is the exclusive work of the editorial section. After rewriting by the katibs the matter will go to the proofreader in the editorial section and after examining by the editorial section the matter is sent for final publication.
6. The witness examined on behalf of the management, however, has stated that adjustment and correction if necessary were made in the newspapers after rewriting by the katibs. It has further come in evidence that when the correct news items are received from the editorial section the katibs are not supposed to add or make any correction of any word in those items. For the management one of the witnesses, Assistant Editor of one of the Urdu daily Qu Tanzeem has stated that katibs does not any headline nor they do any correction in the news items nor they are in any way connected with the preparation of the news items. The direction with regard to the columns to be filled up is always issued by the editorial section and after rewriting by katibs the same are checked by the editorial section. The correction in the headlines and heading are written by the katibs on the direction of the editor. This statement of management witness stands admitted and has not been denied by any of the witnesses examined on behalf of the workman. One of the witnesses has admitted in his evidence that he was not fully competent to do the journalistic work when he was joined newspaper establishment, Some witness has admitted that to collect the news and to write the editorial is the exclusive work of the editor. It has come in evidence that it is not the duty of the katibs to prepare any headlines of the news and make any necessary correction or to arrange the column according to their sweet-will. One, of the workman witnesses has stated that everybody cannot perform the work of calligraphist. The work of calligraphist can only be done by a trained person and admittedly katibs have no such training of calligraphists. From the evidence on records it clearly goes to suggest that the katibs of the newspapers, in question, do not perform the journalistic work and the Tribunal has rightly recorded its finding which cannot be interfered with by this Court sitting in its writ jurisdiction. The evidences adduced on behalf of the parties further go to show that these katibs are not in any way, concerned with any drawing, lay outs, maps, graphs and other similar embellishments. They cannot even enlarge and modify the news as they have no such training and capacity to do so. Even accepting the evidence of the concerned workman that the katibs some time make formal correction here and there, if and when necessary, such correction by themselves will not suggest that they do any journalistic work so as to claim the wages and other benefits prescribed for such journalist. Even the evidence is taken on its face value, they are performing the clerical job. Accordingly, I do not appreciate the submission that these katibs perform the journalistic work and, as such, they will come under the category of artist for the purpose of claiming the wages and other benefits under the Palekar award.
Third and last test is as to whether these katibs calligraph matters. Dictionary meaning of calligraphing is fine pen-man-ship of beautiful handwriting. Mere beautiful handwriting of a particular person will not make him a calligraphist in terms of interpretation given to the word 'calligraphist' in the Palekar award. In order to be calligraphist one must perform the journalistic work and also calligraphist news matters for publication in the newspapers. If the interpretation sought to be given by the workman than individuals having good handwriting can claim to be a calligraphist. Calligraphists must have capacity to perform journalistic work as well as calligraph the news matters. Ordinary meaning of katib is scribe or copier of a matter. The works which are being performed by katibs in their respective newspapers establishment is a clerical function wherein there is no element of art or journalism. On the evidence on record it is amply proved that the katibs do not fulfil the requirements of calligraphist as defined in the Palekar award. As has been stated above, in the Palekar award calligraphists have been treated as working journalist as defined in Section 2(f) of the Act. Section 2(f) of the Act is in the following terms:
''Working journalist' means a person whose principal avocation is that of a journalist and who is employed as such in, or in relation to any newspaper establishment, and includes an editor a leader writer, news-editor, subeditor, feature-writer, copy tester, reporter, correspondent, cartoonist, news photographer and proofreader, but does not include any such person who-
(i) is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or
(ii) being employed in a supervisory capacity, performs either by the nature of the duties attached to his office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.'
The working journalist means a person whose principal avocation is that of journalist and employed for such work in any newspaper establishment. Admittedly principal avocation of these katibs are not journalistic. The workman, namely, katibs of the newspaper establishments has not been able to prove the requirements of working journalistic. It has been found that the katibs are not employees of the newspaper establishments nor they have been employed for doing any journalistic work nor they are performing such work at any stage of the news publication. But the findings of the Tribunal that there is no relationship of master and servant between the katib and the newspaper establishment is not supported on the materials on evidence and to that extent I am not inclined to accept the findings of the Tribunal for the simple reason that it is not the only factor of control and supervision exercised by the master in order to determine the relationship of master and servant. The Tribunal on evidence has recorded a finding that the main function of the katibs are to rewrite and fill up the columns as directed by the editorial section and they are free to go to another establishment, they are not required to apply for leave and/or take permission to leave establishment during the working hour. In my view, on these facts, it cannot be said that there is no relationship of master and servant between the workmen and the management concerned. The fact remains that the katibs work even for a limited period and for a limited purpose for which they are being paid by the management, it can safely be held that there is relationship of master and servant and the contrary view expressed by the Tribunal is not sustainable in the eye of law. I am supported by a decision in the case of Silver Jubilee Tailoring House and Ors. v. Chief Inspector of Shops and Establishments and Anr. reported in 1974 (1) L.L.N. 271, wherein it has been held that only right to control and supervision work of the concerned employee is not exclusive test to determine the relationship of employer and employee. It is also to be seen as to who provides the materials for carrying out the work. In the instant case, the papers and ink are provided by the management for rewriting the news and further the payment is made on the basis of the columns filled up by such workman. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to accept the finding of the Tribunal that there is no relationship of master and servant between the workman and management concerned. Nevertheless, merely because there is relationship of master and servant, one cannot claim the wages and other benefits available to the other category of the employees when the claimant does not perform such function which the payment is made to a class of employees. The definition of working journalist in Section 2(f) of the Act was considered by the Apex Court in the case of Express Newspapers, Ltd. v. Somayajulu and Ors. reported in AIR 1964 S.C. 279 : 1963-II-LLJ-385 at 388, 389 as follows:
'It is plain the definition prescribed by Section 2(8) consists of two parts, the first part provides what a working journalist means, and the second part brings within its purview by an artificial extension certain specified categories of newspaper employees. It would be notified that the first part provides for two conditions which must be satisfied by a journalist before he can be held to working journalist. The first condition is that he must be a journalist whose principal avocation is that of a journalist, and the second condition is that he must be employed as such in, or in relation to, any establishment as there specified'.
Further:
'What is true about the condition as to employment is equally true about the other condition that a journalist can be a working journalist only where it is shown that journalism is his principal avocation. In other words, the position is that whenever an employee working in the newspaper establishment claims the status of a working journalist he has to establish first that he is a journalist, and then that journalism is his principal avocation and he has been employed as such journalist. In providing the fact that he is a journalist, the employees specified in the latter clause need not prove anything more than this that they fail under one or the other category specified in the said clause. But that only proves their status as journalist, they have still further to show that their principal avocation is that of a journalist and that they have been employed as such by the newspaper establishment in question.' It is, therefore, absolutely clear from the decision, as quoted above, that in order to be a working journalist one has to prove that their principal avocation is of journalist and they are employed for performing such journalistic work. The aforesaid decision was reconsider in the case of Daily Pratap v. Their katibs 1972-II-LLJ-247 at 252, 253, wherein it has been held as follows:
'22. At the time when this decision was given there was no definition of 'calligraphist' as now given by the Wage Board; nor was that category in the inclusive part in Section 2(f). The Wage Board's definition merely requires that he should be an artist 'who perform journalistic work and also calligraphs matters.' There is no requirement in this definition that he should be a journalist..... It is a matter of considerable doubt whether one of the conditions to be satisfied as laid down by this Court that he must be a person whose principal avocation is that of a journalist when interpreting the inclusive part of the definition as contained in Section 2(f) of the Act will still apply.....'
Further, in Para 22:
'.......When once the Wage Board has given the definition of a calligraphist and included persons coming under that category in the definition of a 'working journalist' the only test to be applied will be whether the persons concerned satisfies the requirements of the definition given by the Wage Board......'
The decision reported in Daily Pratap (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention will not help the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of this case. In the aforesaid, case the Labour Court, on the evidence on a record, has recorded the findings that the katibs were working in the establishment and; calligraph news matters. On going through the decision it appears that in the aforesaid case the workmen has been able to establish that they are performing the work of calligraphist and on the evidence on record, the Labour Court has recorded the finding that they are the calligraphist. The said finding was confirmed up to the Apex Court. Here the workmen has not been able to prove that they are performing the work of calligraphist. The evidence led both on behalf of the workmen and the management have been elaborately considered and discussed by the Tribunal and on consideration of the evidence on record, the industrial Tribunal has recorded the findings which are based upon correct appraisal of the evidence on record. This Court cannot reappraise the evidence and come to a different finding than what has been recorded by the Tribunal. I am supported by a decision in the case of State of West Bengal v. Atul Krishna Shaw (supra), wherein it has been held that if the authority had appreciated the evidence on record and recorded the findings of fact, the same are binding upon the High Court exercising writ jurisdiction. In that view of the matter, in process of judicial review, this Court cannot reappraise the evidence and record the findings thereon contrary to what has been recorded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence on record has rejected the claim of the workmen but, however, allowed the pay-scale and other benefits applicable to the non-journalist, as stated above. The pay-scale applicable to the non-journalist has been allowed to the concerned workmen on the submission advanced on their behalf as stated above.
7. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, going through the materials on record including the award under challenge, I do not find any justification to interfere with the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed but without cost.