IN THE COURT OF SH. VINAY SINGHAL, ADDL.
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, POLCV: RACC : DELHI
NEW DID NO : 144216
In the matter of :
Sh Hartosh Singh Bal
S/O Late Sh. A.S. Bal
R/O 587, Sector A, Pocket C,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi110070.
M/s Open Media Pvt. Limited,
4 DDA Commercial Complex,
Panchsheel Park, New Delhi110017.
Date of Institution : 01.04.2014
Date of pronouncement : 07.06.2019
A W A R D
This is a direct Industrial Dispute filed by the claimant
against his alleged termination from the services.
1. It is claimed that the management proposed/planned to publish a
weekly general interest magazine namely Open Magazine and
accordingly, in pursuance of the said plan, it employed the
DID No. 144216 1
claimant as a Political Editor on 18.06.2008 about six months
prior to the launch of the magazine at cumulative annual
package of Rs.20 lacs.
2. It is claimed that having been appointed as Political Editor of the
magazine, the nature of duties of the claimant involve handling
all the political contents to be published in the magazine as well
as generating political contents for the magazine including
writing political articles.
3. It is claimed that every such article of the claimant before being
published was required to be approved and cleared by the Editor
of the magazine.
4. It is also claimed that besides the above main function of his job,
the claimant was also looking after the incidental managerial or
administrative tasks as assigned to him from time to time by the
management which includes approval of travel plans and
expenditures of journalists who had been assigned political
stories, in terms of the policies of the management.
5. However, it is claimed that the claimant was having no power to
either employ or terminate services of any person or to take
disciplinary action against, or to promote or transfer any of the
employee of the management.
6. It is claimed that the work of the claimant was appreciated by
the management from time to time which includes Sh. R.
Rajmohan – Publisher of the magazine, Sh. Sandipan Deb –
DID No. 144216 2
Editor and the successor of Sh. Sandipan Deb who was Sh.
7. It is also claimed that in the year 2011 the claimant was
promoted to the rank of Dy. Editor but at the same time the then
Editor Sh. Manu Joseph on 15.06.2011 wrote an internal note
that despite the claimant having been promoted or holding the
rank of Dy. Editor, his position as of Political Editor will
8. It is further claimed that in July, 2011 the claimant was offered a
job offer by another publication but the present management
having found the services of the claimant as of irreplaceable, in
order to dissuade him from joining the said publication,
increased his salary to Rs.29 lacs per annum as an incentive to
him in this respect.
9. It is further claimed that the claimant published certain articles
which were later on came to be known as Radia tapes and
regarding their publication the claimant played a very important
role by choosing and editing the relevant transcripts.
10.It is further claimed that in August to September, 2013 Sh.
Manu Joseph, the then Editor of the magazine while sending the
request for annual increments mentioned the claimant as one of
the two key people in the organization whose services were
indispensable and irreplaceable.
DID No. 144216 3
11.It is further claimed that somewhere in October, 2013 the
claimant received a shock of his life when he heard rumours that
the management is proposing to dispense with his services,
despite being the fact that right from the year of his joining in
2008 till that time i.e. for a period of around five years the
claimant's work and conduct was not even satisfactory but rather
more than satisfactory as per the claim, discussed in earlier
paras, made by the claimant.
12.Accordingly, the said rumours as per the claimant proved to be
not just rumours but rather a reality when the management
actually entered into negotiations with him w.r.t. the terms and
conditions on which his services can be dispensed with and in
this respect the claimant sent certain emails to Sh. V.C.
Aggarwal, the then President of the management w.r.t. the
negotiations which took place in between him and the claimant
in the meetings which took place in this respect.
13.It is also claimed that ultimately the services of the claimant
were terminated vide letter dated 13.11.2013 served on
15.11.2013 whereby the management has given the reason of
termination of services as of “difference in strategy and vision”
of the claimant with that of the management.
14.It is also claimed that along with the said notice of termination,
he was also served with a bank draft for Rs.3,83,815/ towards
the settlement amount which he got encashed without prejudice
DID No. 144216 4
to his rights in order to overcome his financial crisis which fall
upon him on account of sudden termination of his services.
15.A demand letter claiming reinstatement and the allowances was
sent by registered post which was duly replied by the
management but not found satisfactory by the claimant.
16.The claimant thereafter approached the Labour Commissioner
who summoned the management but the matter could not be
settled therein and accordingly, a certificate in this respect was
issued and on the basis of the said certificate the present claim
petition stand filed before this court.
17.It is also claimed that on account of the said termination of the
claimant, he remained unemployed from 13.11.2013 to
18.It is further claimed that on 17.02.2014, he joined another
magazine namely Caravan Magazine as Political Editor but at a
reduced annual package of Rs.22 lacs than the package of Rs.29
lacs which he was getting while in the employment of the
19.Hence, the present petition seeking compensation under the
following heads :
A. Compensation in lieu of statement and back wages which
compensation when adequately computed for the period of
unemployment comes to the following :
DID No. 144216 5
(a) Loss on account of non payment of wages for the period
from the date of termination i.e. 13.11.2013 till 17.02.14 which
comes to around 7.25 lakh.
(b) Loss on account of non payment of statutory payment of
notice period for six months which comes to 14.5 lakh.
(c) Loss on account of wage difference between the payment
of wages paid by the Management and the present employment
of the workman.
B. Loss of account of lower salary which comes to 58,000/.
C. The cost of litigation as provided in Section 11(7) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may also be awarded to the
20.Before proceeding further it is pertinent to mention that though
the petition has been filed against two managements but during
the course of trial management no.2 stand deleted from the array
of parties in terms of statement made by the claimant on
21.09.2015 and hence, in the memo of parties only the name of
remaining management i.e. management no.1 has been
21.The management has taken the preliminary objection to the
effect that the claimant is not covered by the definition of
DID No. 144216 6
Working Journalist as laid down u/s 2(f) of the Working
Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of
Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter
referred to as Working Journalists Act for sake of brevity).
22.It is claimed that the claimant was working with the
management in a supervisory and managerial capacity having
the scope of duties to supervise his team and many free lancers,
sanctioning leaves of the said team members, approving their
traveling plans, approving their confirmation after probation
period, approving payment and stories of the said team
23.The management along with the WS has also filed certain
documents in order to show that indeed the claimant was the
person responsible for sanctioning leaves of the said team
members, approving their traveling plans, approving their
confirmation after probation period, approving payment and
stories of the said team members which show that he was
performing a supervisory role, as per the management.
24.The management also stated that out of approximately 3333
articles published in their magazine, the claimant has
contributed only approximately 200 articles which shows that
his main function was not of a Journalist.
25.The rest of the claim made by the claimant stand denied in the
WS by the management.
DID No. 144216 7
26.It is claimed that the services of the claimant were dispensed
with by the management as the conduct of the claimant
consistently showed that he did not fit into the ethos and culture
as well as aims and goals of the management and as such, the
management has lost confidence in him.
27.It is also claimed that instead of management, it was the
claimant who at the first stance initiated talks with the
management w.r.t. dispensation of his services and accordingly,
it was mutually agreed that the claimant and the management
will part their ways amicably.
28.It is further claimed that during such talks the claimant made a
demand of Rs.1 crore which was not accepted by the
management and accordingly, the claimant made baseless
allegations against the management in his emails to it.
29.It is accordingly, claimed that the management in such
circumstances, was forced to issue the impugned termination
30.From the pleading of the parties the following issues were
framed vide order dated 03.12.2014 and 11.03.2015 :
a) Whether the claimant is covered within the definition of
Working Journalist provided under Sec.2(f) of the
DID No. 144216 8
Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees
(Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,
b) If issue No.(A) is decided in favour of the claimant,
whether the claimant is covered within the definition of
“Workman” provided under Sec.2(s) of the Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 ?
c) If issue no.1 is decided in favour of the claimant, whether
services of the workman were illegally and/or unjustifiably
terminated by the management ? OPW
31.In support of his claim claimant examined himself as WW1 and
deposed along the lines of statement of claim and also proved on
record the documents in support of his case.
32.Out of a total number of 17 documents relied upon by the
claimant, the most relevant documents are Ex.WW1/12 and
33.Ex.WW1/12 is an email dated 20.04.2011 authored by Sh. R.
Rajmohan and addressed to four persons associated with the
management whereby said Sh. R. Rajmohan has talked about the
stand taken by the magazine having been vindicated in
DID No. 144216 9
pursuance of the TV discussion in which the claimant also took
part on behalf of the management and accordingly, termed the
said as an achievement for the magazine.
34.Similarly, Ex.WW1/13 is an email dated 15.06.2011 authored
by Sh. Manu Joseph, the then Editor of the magazine addressed
to the claimant whereby it has been mentioned that despite the
claimant holding the rank of Dy. Editor, his earlier role as of
Political Editor will continue with the magazine.
35.Ex.WW1/18 is also an important document as the same is a set
of 338 articles written by the claimant from time to time and
published in the magazine being run by the management.
36.During the course of cross examination, in response to the
questions put to him, the claimant stood to his ground that his
role as a Political Editor with the management was not of the
supervisory nature and infact the final decision to publish or not
publish any particular article rested with the Editor who used to
be higher in rank than that of the claimant, having responsibility
to edit the entire magazine.
37.In response to further questions, he also deposed that he did not
have the absolute power to sanction funds for field duty to the
Junior Editors, which power rested with the Editor only who
used to have the final say in this respect.
38.He denied the suggestion that he joined the Caravan magazine
after his alleged termination as he was satisfied with the offer
DID No. 144216 10
made by it but rather deposed that he joined the same as there
was no other job offer available to him after his termination.
39.He also deposed that at the time of accepting the amount of
approximately Rs.3 lacs tendered to him along with termination
letter, he did not lodge any protest but stated that in his claim
petition he mentioned the circumstances on account of which he
accepted and encashed the same.
40. The management examined Sh Anil Bisht, its Chief Financial
Officer and IT Head as MW1 who also deposed on the lines of
the defence taken in the reply to the claim and also proved on
record the documents in support of its case.
41.During the course of cross examination, he deposed that he
having holding the post of Chief Financial Officer and IT Head
was never involved with the functioning of the newsroom and
accordingly, was not aware as to how many Journalists
employed with the management had written articles numbering
more than that written by the claimant but during the course of
subsequent deposition held on 23.05.2019, he deposed that no
other reporter employed with the magazine during the tenure of
the claimant with it has written more number of articles than the
one written by the claimant.
DID No. 144216 11
42.He also admitted the stand taken by the claimant by deposing
that any article written/published in any form in the magazine
could not have been published without the prior
permission/approval of the Editor.
43.He also deposed that the expression “loss of confidence in the
claimant” or the conduct of the claimant being against “ethos
and cultures of the management” denote that the views
expressed by the claimant in some of his articles even though
published with the consent of the editor were not consistent with
the views of the management.
44.He also deposed that the claimant even after being appointed as
Political Editor continued to perform journalistic duties.
45.He also admitted that prior to the termination of services of the
claimant, the claimant was given a pay raise.
46.After considering the claim, reply, documents and the evidence
led on record, the issue wise decision of the court is as under :
ISSUE No.A : Whether the claimant is covered within the
definition of Working Journalist provided under Sec.2(f) of
the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees
(Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,
DID No. 144216 12
47.Before proceeding to decide as to whether the claimant is
covered by the definition of Working Journalist as per Section
2(f) of the Working Journalists Act, the court deems it fit that
the said Section 2(f) and (g) be reproduced herein as under :
“2(f) “working journalist” means a person whose
principal avocation is that of a journalist and who
is employed as such, either wholetime or parttime,
in, or in relation to, one or more newspaper
establishments, and includes an editor, a leader
writer, newseditor, subeditor, featurewriter,
copytester, reporter, correspondent, cartoonist,
newsphotographer 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;
(g) all words and expressions used but not defined
in this Act and defined in the Industrial Dispute Act,
1947 (14 of 1947), shall have the meanings
respectively assigned to them in that Act.”
DID No. 144216 13
48.Furthermore, by virtue of Section 3 of the said Act, the
provisions of Industrial Dispute Act shall apply to the Working
Journalist as they apply to workman within the meaning of
Industrial Dispute Act.
49.Having gone through the provisions of Section 2 and 3 of
Working Journalists Act, the court now proceed to decide as to
whether the claimant was within the definition of Working
Journalist or not.
50.In this respect the judgment of Neena Murudeshwar Vs. Key
Publication Limited and Ors., cited as (2005) ILLJ 918
Bombay rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court, is relevant.
51.By virtue of para no.7 of the said judgment, relevant portion of
which is reproduced herein, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has
held that for the purpose of any person falling within the
category of Working Journalist the following three conditions
must be satisfied :
“xxxx Under Section 3 of the Act the provisions of
the Industrial Disputes Act are applicable only in
relation to working journalists. The first question
therefore is whether the petitioner is a working
journalist. Working journalists are defined in
Section 2(p) of the said Act. Analysing Section 2(f),
it is clear that the following three ingredients
DID No. 144216 14
require to be satisfied :
(a) The principal avocation of the petitioner must be
that of a journalist.
(b) Respondent No.1 must be a newspaper
establishment as defined in Section 2(d) of the said
(c) The petitioner ought not to have been employed
mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity,
or being employed in a supervisory capacity
performed either by way of the nature of the duties
attached to her, office or by reason of any powers
vested in her, functions mainly of a managerial
52.As far as requirement (b) is concerned, there is no dispute about
it that the management is a newspaper establishment as none of
the parties have raised any objection regarding the same.
53.As far as requirement (c) is concerned, the management has
taken a stand that the claimant was engaged mainly in
managerial and administrative capacity which was a supervisory
capacity whereas the claimant has claimed that his principal
avocation was that of a journalist.
54.Before coming to the stand of the claimant, the court deems it fit
to analyze the stand taken by the management in this respect.
DID No. 144216 15
55.The management in order to prove its stand has placed reliance
upon certain documents Ex.MW1/2 running into around 140
pages consisting of various emails exchanged between the
employees, the claimant, the then Editors and on the basis of the
same has claimed that the same shows the approval of travel
expenditure of the reporters by the claimant which function falls
within the category of managerial/administrative powers.
56.It is not feasible to refer to each and every document relied upon
by virtue of Ex.MW1/2 but it is suffice to say that the court has
gone through each and every page of the said Ex.MW1/2 and a
perusal of the same makes it clear that it was not the claimant
who has approved the travel expenditure of the reporters.
57.What emerges from the perusal of the said Ex.MW1/2 is that the
reporters used to raise demand for approval of travel expenditure
by way of email to the claimant who in turn used to forward the
said demand with his comments to the Editor and it was the
Editor who used to give approval to the said travel expenditure.
58.This makes it clear that the stand taken by the management that
the claimant was the sole authority to approve the travel plans
and expenditure stand negated.
59.The management has also placed reliance on the said Ex.MW1/2
itself to demonstrate that even the ACRs of the employees used
to be written by the claimant. However, a perusal of the said
document and as an illustration the document appearing at page
DID No. 144216 16
bearing no.105 of the said exhibit makes it clear that the
claimant signed the same only in the capacity of “Immediate
Appraiser” which appraisal was subject to review by the
reviewer meaning thereby that the appraisal made by the
claimant was not the final appraisal which again negates the
stand of the management in this respect.
60.One more interesting thing is that though the management has
placed reliance upon such appraisals but the same are only in the
form of unfinished appraisals as the originals of the same were
never proved on record nor the same were duly filled up as such
not have attained the state of finality, besides the observation
given in the earlier paras.
61.The management by virtue of said Ex.MW1/2 has also sought to
prove that it was the claimant who used to approve leaves of the
62.However, whether merely approving leaves can vest the
claimant with the managerial/administrative power is to be seen
in the light of the definition of Working Journalist given in
section 2(f) (ii) or not. The answer to the same is provided by
the very said judgment (Supra) and more importantly by virtue
of para no.10 to 13 of the same, which are reproduced herein as
“ xxxxx 10. There remains then for consideration the
question whether the petitioner was employed mainly
DID No. 144216 17
in a managerial or administrative capacity or being
employed in a supervisory capacity performed
functions mainly of a managerial nature. The
question must be answered in negative. The evidence
establishes the contrary.
11. The petitioner deposed that she had no authority
to appoint or terminate anyone from service, sanction
leave or payments or take any action which bound the
company and that she was not a constituted attorney
of the company. What is even more important is the
fact that Respondent No.2 in his cross examination
admitted that he sanctioned the petitioner's leave. He
further admitted that he sanctioned the leave of other
staff members. He further admitted that he made
payments to the staff. He also admitted that the
termination orders were signed by him. Respondent
No.2 nowhere stated that the petitioner had any
authority to sanction the leave, to make payments, or
to terminate the service of any of the employees.
12. Realising the effect of the cross examination, he
volunteered three statements. He stated that the
leave was sanctioned, payments were made and
termination orders were signed on the
recommendation of the petitioner. Even assuming his
DID No. 144216 18
statements are correct, it is pertinent to note that it is
not his case even here that she had any authority to
do so. The recommendations could be made by
anyone, even by persons who are not employees of
the respondents. That the petitioner allegedly made
recommendations would not imply that she had any
13. The impugned order, wrongly and without any
cogent evidence, comes to the conclusion that the
duties of the petitioner were of a supervisory nature
and that she had administrative control over the
subordinates. There is no evidence whatsoever to
support the finding. The only evidence was that the
petitioner had sanctioned the leave of certain staff
members during the absence of Respondent no.2, as it
was urgently required to do so. The learned
Presiding Officer has disbelieved the reasons given
by the petitioner for sanctioning the leave. It is
difficult to understand why he did so. It is the case of
the respondents themselves that the leave was
sanctioned only by Respondent No.1 albeit on the
recommendation of the petitioner. In view of this
testimony, the petitioner's explanation is obviously
correct. In any event in view of the admission by
DID No. 144216 19
Respondent No.2, it is clear that it was Respondent
No.2 and not the petitioner who was responsible for
and authorised to sanction leave, make payments and
terminate the services of the employees. The
respondents have not led any other evidence to
indicate that the petitioner had any managerial or
supervisory functions in the company. xxxxx”
63.The similar is the position w.r.t. the claimant herein. The
management has failed to show that the claimant was having
any authority to appoint or terminate anyone from the services
because even as per Ex.MW1/2 and more particularly page
number 55 of the same, even in case of appointment of one Sh.
Mihir, the claimant has only recommended him to be employed
but the final decision w.r.t. employment and pay etc was again
taken by Sh. Manu Joseph as per his email appearing at page
no.53 and 54 of the same.
64.The management has also failed to show that the claimant was
ever appointed as a constituted attorney of the management by
virtue of which the claimant's action could have bound the
management in any manner.
65.Hence, as far as management's stand regarding the claimant
holding a managerial/administrative position and performing a
supervisory role accordingly is concerned, the same stand
negated in view of the above discussion.
DID No. 144216 20
66.Now coming to the claimant's stand in this respect, the claimant
has placed reliance upon Ex.WW1/18 which is a bunch of 338
articles written by the claimant during the tenure of his five
years with the management in the magazine for which he was
67.The MW1 during the course of his cross examination has
admitted that no other journalist employed with the said
magazine during the tenure of the claimant with it had written
more articles than the claimant.
68.It has also come on record that during the said tenure of the
claimant a total number of 3333 articles were published in the
69.In these circumstances, the number of articles written by the
claimant i.e. 338 constitute more than 10% of the articles
published in the said magazine.
70.If this is not the journalist work being done by the claimant
w.r.t. a newspaper publication which in the present case is a
magazine in which only the articles stand published, then what
other work can be called journalist work, is beyond the
comprehension of the court.
71.Furthermore, even the Ex.MW1/2 relied upon by the
management running into around 140 pages makes it clear that it
was the claimant who gives his comments w.r.t. any purported
reporting proposed by any of the journalist and only on the basis
DID No. 144216 21
of his expert comments the said purported reporting stand
approved by the Editor concerned.
72.Accordingly, the court has got no hesitation to hold that the
claimant's principal avocation with the management was that of
a Journalist despite holding the post of a Dy. Editor/Political
Editor and in these circumstances, the provisions of Section 2(f)
without sub section stand applied in the case of the claimant.
73.Accordingly, issue no.A is decided in favour of the claimant.
ISSUE No.B : If issue No.(A) is decided in favour of the
claimant, whether the claimant is covered within the definition
of “Workman” provided under Sec.2(s) of the Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 ?
74.In view of the decision of issue no.A, the claimant having been
held to be a Working Journalist, the provisions of section 2(s) of
the Industrial Disputes Act stand applied to the claimant as by
virtue of Section 3 of the Working Journalists Act, the said
provisions of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act as
applicable in the case of a workman are applicable in the case of
Working Journalist also and again in this respect para no.15 of
the said judgment (Supra) (which is reproduced as under) gives
strength to the conclusion reached by this court :
“ xxxx The status of the petitioner as a workman
under the Industrial Disputes Act does not really
DID No. 144216 22
fall for consideration at all. Under Section 3 of the
said Act the provisions of the Industrial Disputes
Act are made applicable to working journalist as
they apply in relation to workman within the
meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. The
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act apply to
the petitioner not by virtue of the petitioner being a
workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, but by
virtue of the petitioner being a working journalist as
defined in the said Act and the said Act
incorporating in the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act, I am supported in this view by the
judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in
Bennett Coleman v. Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha, 1995
ILLJ225. D.R. Dhanuka, J. (as he then was), after
setting out the history of the enactment of the said
Act and referring to the provisions of Section 3
thereof, held as under at p.229 :
“11. …... It is clear that the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as in force for the
time being are applicable to working journalists
save and except the modifications specified in Sub
section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act. The
Industrial Disputes Act in its application to working
DID No. 144216 23
journalists must be read not in isolation but
together with the provisions contained in the
Working Journalists and Other Newspaper
Employees (Conditions of Service) and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955. The said Act
45 of 1955 incorporates the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as if with pen and ink
except in respect of the specific modifications set
out in Subsection (2) of Section 3 of the said Act. ”
75.Issue no.B is accordingly, decided in favour of the claimant.
ISSUE No.C : If issue no.1 is decided in favour of the
claimant, whether services of the workman were illegally
and/or unjustifiably terminated by the management ? OPW
76.Now comes the question as to whether services of the claimant
were illegally or unjustifiably terminated by the management or
77.In this respect, the management has relied upon the Contract of
Employment dated 18.06.2008 Ex.WW1/1 in order to argue that
as per clause no.9 of the said Contract of Employment, there
was no need on the part of the management to assign any reason
for the purpose of terminating the services of the claimant.
DID No. 144216 24
78.However, it is pertinent to mention that the said Contract of
Employment dated 18.06.2008 Ex.WW1/1 was entered into
between the parties when the claimant initially joined the
management for a total annual remuneration of Rs.20 lacs.
79.The claimant has taken a stand by virtue of the present claim
petition that on account of his good performance, the
management promoted him to the post of Dy. Editor in 2011
thereby also raising his annual remuneration from Rs.20 lacs to
80.The management has vaguely denied the corresponding para of
the claim petition in this respect in its WS.
81.However, the MW1 during the course of his cross examination
held on 13.05.2019 admitted that prior to termination of services
of the claimant he was given a pay raise and his designation was
also changed from the initial one.
82.In these circumstances, it becomes clear that the said Contract of
Employment dated 18.06.2008 Ex.WW1/1 ceased to operate as
on the date the claimant was given a different posting at a
different package and hence, the said Ex.WW1/1 cannot be
relied upon by the management for any purpose whatsoever
including for the purpose of termination of services of the
83.In these circumstances, the claim made by the claimant that his
services have been terminated illegally and unjustifiably without
DID No. 144216 25
following the due provisions of laws in this respect and more
specifically provisions of Section 3(2)(a) which provides that in
case of an Editor six months notice should have been served
prior to terminating the services of the claimant by the
management, stand accepted.
84.Issue no.C is accordingly, decided in favour of the claimant.
ISSUE No.D : RELIEF
85.As far as the relief A(a) i.e. loss on account of non payment of
wages for the period from the date of termination i.e. 13.11.2013
till the date of new employment i.e. 17.02.2014 is concerned, in
view of the fact that the court has accepted the contention of the
claimant that he should have either been served with a six
months notice or paid notice pay in lieu of the same, this relief
plea stand rejected.
86.As far as prayer clause No.A(c) regarding recovery of loss on
account of wage difference between the payment of wages by
the present management and the wages being earned by the
claimant in the current employment are concerned, the same
also stand rejected in view of the acceptance of prayer clause no.
87.Similarly, prayer clause No. B also stand rejected in view of the
reasoning made in the earlier paras.
DID No. 144216 26
88.In view of the outcome of issue no. C, the court hereby hold that
the claimant is entitled to the following reliefs :
(a) six months notice pay on account of termination of
services of the claimant without service of notice as stipulated
u/s 3(2)(a) of the Working Journalists Act as per prayer clause
(b) Furthermore, an amount of Rs.10 lacs also stand awarded
to the claimant on account of harassment meted out to him by
the management in not following the due procedure of law.
(c) the cost of litigation as prayed vide prayer clause No.C also
stand awarded subject to furnishing of certificate in this
respect by the claimant.
90.Let copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Govt for its
publication as per rules.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Court ( VINAY SINGHAL)
June , 2019 ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURTV,
DID No. 144216 27