Civil Appeal No. 8440 of 1983.

From the Judgment and Order dated 22.4.83 of the High Court of Bombay in Writ
Petition No. 2388/82.
M.K. Ramamurthy and A.K. Sanghi for the Appellant.
Dr. Y.S. Chitale, P.H. Parekh, R.K. Dhillon, Ms. Sunita Sharma and Dr. D.
Chandrachud for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J.
The question which arises for consideration in this case is whether the law reports
namely, All India Reporter, Criminal Law Journal, Labour and Industrial Cases,
Taxation Law Reports, Allahabad Law Journal and U.P. Law Tribune published by the
1st respondent, All India Reporter Limited, are newspapers as defined in the
Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (Act No. 45 of 1955) (hereinafter referred to as
'the Act ') and whether the employees of the 1st respondent engaged in the
production or publication of the said law reports are entitled to the benefits
conferred upon the employees of newspaper establishments by the Act.
The Act was enacted on 20th December, 1955 with the object of regulating certain
conditions of service of working journalists and other employees employed in the
newspaper establishments.
The expression "newspaper" is defined by section 2(b) of the Act as follows: "
"Newspaper" means any printed periodical work containing public news or comments on
public news and includes such other class of printed periodical work as may, from
time to time, be notified in this behalf by the Central Government in the Official
Gazette." 779 A "newspaper employee" is defined by section 2(c) of the Act as any
working journalist, and includes any other person employed to do any work in, or in
relation to, any newspaper establishment.
"Newspaper establishment" is defined by section 2(d) of the Act as an establishment
under the control of any person or body of persons, whether incorporated or not,
for the production or publication of one or more newspapers or for conducting any
news agency or syndicate.
The expression "working journalist" is defined by section 2(f) of the Act as a
person whose principal avocation is that of a journalist and who is employed as
such, either whole time or part time, in or in relation to, one or more newspaper
establishments and includes an editor, a leader writer, news editor, sub editor,
feature writer, copy tester, reporter, correspondent, cartoonist, news photographer
and proof reader, but does not include any such person who is employed mainly in a
managerial or administrative capacity, or 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.
A "non journalist newspaper employee" means any person employed to do any work in,
or in relation to, any newspaper establishment, but does not include any such
person who is a working journalist, or is employed mainly in a managerial or
administrative capacity or 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 as stated in section
2(dd) of the Act.
Chapter II of the Act deals with certain conditions of service of the working
journalists.
Those provisions relate to the retrenchment, payment of gratuity, hours of work,
leave, fixation or revision of wages etc.
Chapter IIA of the Act deals with similar conditions of service of non journalist
newspaper employees.
Section 9 of the Act authorises the Central Government to appoint a Wage Board
consisting of two persons representing employers in relation to newspaper
establishments; two persons representing working journalists; and three independent
persons, one of whom shall be a person who is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court
or of the Supreme Court and who shall be appointed by that Government as the
Chairman thereof for the purpose of making recommendations with regard to fixation
or revision of wages of working journalists.
Similarly, section 13C of the Act provides for the constitution of a Wage Board for
the purpose of making recommendations regarding the fixation or revision of the
rates of wages in respect of non journalist news 780 paper employees.
Section 13AA which was inserted by Act 6 of 1979 provides for the constitution of a
Tribunal for fixing or revising rates of wages in respect of working journalists
where the Central Government is of opinion that the Board constituted under section
9 for the purpose of fixing or revising rates of wages in respect of working
journalists under the Act has not been able to function effectively.
That Tribunal has to consist of a Judge of the High Court or of the Supreme Court.
Similarly section 13DD of the Act empowers the Central Government to constitute a
Tribunal where it is of opinion that the Board constituted under section 13C of the
Act has not been able to function effectively.
Section 13AA and section 13DD of the Act came into force with effect from January
31, 1979.
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 13AA and section 13DD of the Act the
Central Government constituted under two separate notifications two Tribunals on
9.2.1979 with Justice Palekar, a former Judge of the Supreme Court, as the member
of each of the two Tribunals to make recommendations in respect of fixing or
revising wages of working journalists as well as non working journalists.
Justice Palekar made his recommendations on 12.8.1980.
In exercise of its powers under section 12 of the Act the Central Government
accepted a part of the recommendations and made an order thereon on 26.12.1980 and
accepted the remaining part of the recommendations and made another order thereon
on 20.7.1981.
The 1st respondent, All India Reporter Limited, was not served with any individual
notice by the Tribunal before it passed its award.
The 1st respondent also did not send a reply to the questionnaire issued by the
Tribunal nor it gave any evidence before the Tribunal in respect of the matters
referred to therein.
However on 15.7.1981 and 3.8.1981 the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Nagpur wrote to
the 1st respondent asking it to file its written statements in the matter of non
implementation of the Palekar Award as the orders of the Central Government made
under section 12 of the Act were popularly called.
The first respondent submitted its reply in October, 1981 inter alia contending
that it was not running a newspaper establishment and publications published by the
company were not the newspapers and as such the Palekar Award was not applicable to
it.
Again on 18th November, 1982 the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Nagpur wrote a letter
to the Manager of the 1st respondent informing him that the 1st respondent was
liable to implement the order of the Central Government made on the recommendations
of the Palekar Tribunal in respect of its employees since the Ist respondent was a
newspaper establishment.
Immediately after the service of the said notice the Ist respon 781 dent filed a
writ petition on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench
in Writ Petition No. 2388 of 1982 questioning the validity of the notice served on
it by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Nagpur calling upon it to implement the
orders of the Central Government on the basis of the award of the Palekar Tribunal.
Initially the State of Maharashtra, the Commissioner of Labour and the Deputy
Labour Commissioner, Nagpur had been impleaded as respondents.
Thereafter during the pendency of the Writ Petition the Indian Federation of
Working Journalists and the All India Reporter Karamachari Sangh were impleaded as
respondents in the writ petition.
It was urged before the High Court on behalf of the Ist respondent, All India
Reporter Limited, that the law reports publised by it were not newspapers as
defined in the Act and therefore the order made by the Central Government on the
basis of the recommendations of Justice Palekar were not applicable to its
establishment.
The High Court accepted the plea of the Ist respondent and declared that the law
reports were not newspapers within the meaning of section 2(b) of the Act and that
the demand made by the Deputy Labour Commissioner to comply with the order made by
the Central Government on the basis of the recommendations of Justice Palekar was
unsustainable by its judgment dated 22nd April, 1983.
Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court the appellants have filed this appeal
by special leave.
The Ist respondent, All India Reporter Limited, publishes in addition to the law
reports referred in the first paragraph of this judgment several other books
commentaries, digests and manuals.
But we are concerned in this case with the narrow question whether the six law
reports which are being published by the Ist respondent are newspapers within the
meaning of the Act and whether the employees engaged in their production or
distribution are entitled to the benefit of the orders made by the Central
Government on the basis of the recommendations of the Palekar Tribunal.
The definition of the expression "newspaper" has already been set out above.
In order to be a newspaper a work must be a (i) printed work; (ii) a periodical;
and (iii) should contain public news or comments on public news.
Any other class of printed periodical work as may, from time to time, be notified
in this behalf by the Central Government in the Official Gazette may also be a
newspaper.
There is no dispute in the present case that the law reports are printed works and
that they are periodicals.
The only question which remains to be 782 considered is whether they contain public
news or comments on public news.
Entry 39 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution reads thus:
"Newspapers, books and printing presses.
" Newspapers and books are no doubt shown as separate items but the distinction
between them sometimes becomes very thin or totally vanishes.
In this connection it is necessary to reproduce a passage from the Report of the
Royal Commission on the Press (1947 49) appointed by the British Government and
presided over by Sir William David Ross.
It reads thus: "The newspaper and periodical Press of Great Britain consists of
over 4,000 publications ranging from newspapers famous throughout the world to the
journals of obscure societies.
Its limits are ill defined, for there is no definition of either `newspaper ' or
`periodical ' which enables each to be infallibly distinguished from the other and
from publications which are properly speaking neither.
The term `newspaper ' is usually applied (except so far as concerns the important
class of trade newspapers) to publications devoted mainly to recording current
events, and `periodicals ' to magazines, reviews, and journals which, in so far as
they are concerned with current events at all, are concerned to comment rather than
to report; but newspapers merge into advertising sheets, periodicals into books and
pamphlets, and both into one another; . ." The expression "news" is not defined in
the Act.
Several definitions of the expression "news" collected from the different
dictionaries and digests have been cited before us.
It is enough if we refer to the meaning of the word "news" given in the Shorter
Oxford English Dictionary for purposes of this case.
It says that "news" means tidings, new information of recent events; new
occurrences as a subject of report or talk.
The law reports which are being published by the Ist respondent are reports of
recent decisions of the Supreme Court of India and of the High Courts in India
which are supplied to it by its agents appointed at New Delhi and other places
where High Courts are situated.
It cannot be disputed that these decisions are of public importance.
Article 141 of the Constitution provides that the law declared by Supreme Court
shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.
Even apart from Article 141 of the Constitution the decisions of the Supreme Court,
which is a court of record, constitute a 783 source of law as they are the judicial
precedents of the highest court of the land.
They are binding on all the courts throughout India.
Similarly the decisions of every High Court being judicial precedents are binding
on all courts situated in the territory over which the High Court exercises
jurisdiction.
Those decisions also carry persuasive value before courts which are not situated
within its territory.
The decisions of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts are almost as important
as statutes, rules and regulations passed by the competent legislatures and other
bodies since they affect the public generally.
It is well known that the decisions of the superior courts while they settle the
disputes between the parties to the proceedings in which they are given they are
the sources of law in so far as all others are concerned.
As soon as a decision is rendered the members of the public would be interested in
knowing it.
At any rate lawyers and others connected with courts and judicial proceedings who
constitute a substantial section of the public are interested in knowing the
contents and the effect of the decisions.
The Ist respondent, All India Reporter Limited, and other publishers of law reports
in the interests of their own business vie with each other to publish the judgments
of the Supreme Court or of the High Courts as early as possible in their law
reports which are published periodically either weekly, fortnightly or monthly.
They believe that faster the decisions are published in their reports, larger will
be the number of subscribers.
Infact we have a law report which is published from Delhi which publishes the
judgments rendered by the Supreme Court within a day or two.
The contents of these law reports constitute news insofar as the subscribers and
the readers of these reports are concerned.
It is by reading these law reports they come to know of the latest legal position
prevailing in the country on any question decided in the decisions reported in the
said reports.
Hence it is difficult to agree with the submission made on behalf of the Ist
respondent that the law reports do not carry any news and that the public is not
interested in them.
We are of the view that any decision published in the law reports of the Ist
respondent contain information about the recent events which have taken place in
the Supreme Court or in the High Courts which are public bodies and these are
matters in which the public is interested.
We find it also difficult to agree with the submission made on behalf of the Ist
respondent that since the law reports are going to be preserved by the lawyers as
reference books after getting them rebound subsequently they should be treated as
books.
It may be that the decisions contained in these law reports may cease to be items
of news after some time but when they are received by the subscribers they do
possess the character of works containing news.
784 Strong reliance was placed on behalf of the Ist respondent on the decision of
the High Court of Orissa in P.S.V. Iyer vs Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa, AIR
1960 Orissa 221 in which the question that arose for consideration was whether a
law journal Cuttack Law Times, which was a non official monthly journal containing
the decisions of the Orissa High Court, the Orissa Board of Revenue and also of the
Supreme Court was a newspaper and if it was a newspaper whether it was competent
for the Legislature of the State of Orissa to levy sales tax on the sale of the
said journal.
The said question arose in that form in view of the language of Entry 54 of List II
of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution which read as follows: "54.
Taxes on the sale or purchase of goods other than newspapers, subject to Entry 92 A
of List I." The language of Entry 92 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the
Constitution which conferred on Parliament alone the power to tax sale or purchase
of newspapers was in the following terms: "92.
Tax on the sale or purchase of newspapers and on advertisements published therein.
" After referring to the definition of the expression `newspaper ' in the Press and
Registration of Books Act, 1867, the Indian Post Offices Act, 1898, the
Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of Publication) Act, 1956, the Delivery of
Books and Newspapers Act, 1956 the , etc.
the High Court of Orissa held that the Cuttack Law Times was not a newspaper
because according to it the necessary pre requisite of a periodical in order to
make it a newspaper was that it should contain mainly publicnews or comments on
public news and that books containing authoritative reports for future reference
could, by no means, be said to contain news so as to become newspaper.
Accordingly, the High Court of Orissa held that the sale of Cuttack Law Times,
which according to it was not a newspaper, could be taxed by the State Legislature
under Entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.
We find it difficult to agree with the above decision since the High Court of
Orissa omitted to take into consideration that information about recent decisions
of courts of record could be news in which the public was interested.
The fact that a law report could be used as a reference book at later stage was not
sufficient to hold that the law report did not contain public news when it was
received by the subscriber.
785 The High Court of Madras declined to follow the above decision of the Orissa
High Court in its decision in T.V. Ramnath and Another vs Union of India and
Others, [1975] Labour and Industrial Cases 488 in which the Madras Law Journal, a
law report published from Madras, was held to be a newspaper and the establishment
in which the said law report was being published was a newspaper establishment
which attracted the provisions of that Act.
We agree with the following observations made in the said decision by Ismail, J.
(as he then was): "Similarly, the publications of the petitioner in the second writ
petition can be said to contain `public news ' or `comments on public news ' since
it contains reports of the judgments of the Courts as well as comments on such
judgments.
Even though, the same may be primarily intended for that section of the public
which is concerned with law and the administration of law, in the present days,
nothing prevents any educated individual taking interest in such publications and
the news themselves being of interest to such persons.
Therefore I am clearly of the opinion that the expression `public news ' is of
sufficiently wide amplitude to cover the publications of both the petitioners in
question.
" It is seen that the editor of the law report containing the above decision has
appended an editorial comment on this stating that this decision is wrong and that
the Orissa High Court 's decision was right.
Justice A.N. Grover, who later became a Judge of the Supreme Court of India and the
Chairman of the Press Council, as a Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court held
in L.D. Jain vs General Manager, Government of India Press and Others, I.L.R. 1967
Punjab and Haryana 193 that the Gazette of India which was the official publication
of all kinds of news and information was a newspaper within the meaning of section
2(b) of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1955 and that it was not essential for a newspaper to conform
strictly to the usual pattern of a daily or weekly or monthly newspaper or a
magazine containing news which members of the public ordinarily read in order to
get reports of recent events, comments on them etc.
In doing so, he distinguished the decision of the Australian Court in Ex Parte
Stillwell, in which the Bradshaw 's Guide was held to be a book of reference which
lacked every element of what could be called a newspaper on which the Orissa High
Court had relied.
The Ist respondent cannot derive any assistance from the deci 786 sion of the High
Court of Bombay in Commissoner of Sales Tax vs M/s. Express Printing Press, AIR
1983 Bombay 191 in which the Bombay High Court held that the two publications by
name `Jocker ' and `Jabara ' which contained predictions or forecasts of lucky
numbers were not newspapers since those publications had nothing to do with any
recent event which had taken place.
In the Annual Report of the Registrar of Newspapers for India, 1957 there is an
interesting discussion of certain specific cases in which the question whether the
publications involved were newspapers or not.
In the course of the said report it is obversed thus: "In this connection the Press
Registrar scrutinised reports published in certain foreign countries regarding
their own Press and it was noticed that in the catalogues prepared by them
specialised newspapers such as the one under consideration were not excluded from
the list of newspapers.
Even technical journals such as medical periodicals, journals related to sciences,
arts etc., were included.
A catalogue of Yugoslav newspapers and magazines, for instance, includes
publications relating to the following subjects: Political information; economics;
law and states administration; education; philology; natural sciences; medicine;
agriculture; technology; geography; ethnography history; archives; archaeology;
literature; music; applied art; film; chess; photography; tourism; stamp
collecting; physical culture and sport; humour and religion.
In a catalogue of Russian papers for 1958 all the above categories of newspapers
and periodicals have been included in addition to many others which deal
exclusively with party affairs.
" It is significant that the expression `newspaper ' as defined in the Act includes
not merely `public news ' but also `comments on public news '.
Every law report contains the editorial note at the commencement of the decisions
printed therein and also comments on some of the recent decisions.
Law reports also contain, newly enacts Acts, Rules and Regulations, book reviews
and advertisements relating to law books handwriting and finger print experts etc.
, speeches made at conferences in which the legal fraternity is interested etc.
Though the 787 publication of these items by itself may not occupy a substantial
part of a law report to make it a newspaper, the publication of the recent
judgments itself is sufficient to make a law report a newspaper which may after
some time cease to be a newspaper and become a book of reference.
The Act in question is a beneficent legislation which is enacted for the purpose of
improving the conditions of service of the employees of the newspaper
establishments and hence even if it is possible to have two opinions on the
construction of the provisions of the Act the one which advances the object of the
Act and is in favour of the employees for whose benefit the Act is passed has to be
accepted.
We are of the view that the law reports published by the Ist respondent are
newspapers and the employees employed by the Ist respondent in their production or
publication of the said law reports should be extended the benefit of the orders
passed by the Central Government on the basis of the recommendations made by the
Palekar Award.
We, accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and
dismiss the writ petition filed by the Ist respondent before the High Court.
There will, however, be no order as to costs.
S.L. Appeal allowed.