Holding

Law reports are newspapers within the meaning of the Act, and the employees of All India Reporter Ltd are entitled to the benefits of the Palekar award.

Summary

All India Reporter Ltd publishes several law reports and argued that these publications are not "newspapers" within the meaning of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1955, and therefore its employees were not entitled to the wage benefits ordered by the Palekar Tribunal. The Bombay High Court held that the law reports were not newspapers and dismissed the Deputy Labour Commissioner’s notice. On special leave, the Supreme Court examined whether the reports satisfy the statutory definition of a newspaper—being a printed periodical containing public news or comments on public news. It held that the reports, which contain recent Supreme Court and High Court judgments of public importance, constitute public news and comments, and thus qualify as newspapers. Consequently, the employees of All India Reporter Ltd are covered by the Act and entitled to the benefits of the Palekar award. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment, allowed the appeal, and dismissed the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether law reports published by All India Reporter Ltd qualify as "newspapers" under section 2(b) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1955.
Whether employees engaged in the production or distribution of such law reports are entitled to the benefits conferred by the Act and the Palekar Tribunal award.

Legislation cited

Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955s. 12, s. 13AA, s. 13C, s. 13DD, s. 2(b), s. 2(c), s. 2(d), s. 2(f), s. 9

Subjects

newspaper definitionlaw reportsemployee benefitsWorking Journalists Actpublic newsstatutory interpretationPalekar Tribunalwage board

Judgment

ALL INDIA REPORTER KARAMCHARI SANGH & ORS.
A
v.
ALL INDIA REPORTER LIMITED AND ORS.

MAY 2, -1988

B IE.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.]

Working Journalists and other Newspapers Employees (Condi-
rions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (Act No: 45 of
1955 )-Whether law reports-All India Reporter, Criminal Law Journal,
Labour and Industrial Cases, Taxation Law Reports, Allahabad Law
~
-
C Journal, U.P. Law Tribune published by All India Reporter Ltd. are (
newspapers as defined-in-And whether employees of All India Repor- k
/er Limited engaged in production of publication of these law reports
are entitled to benefits conferred upon employees of newspaper est-
ablishments by the above Act.

D The question which arose for consideration in this case was
whether the law reports, namely, All India Reporter, Criminal Law
Journal, Labour and Industrial Cases, Taxation Law Reports, Allaha-
bad Law Journal and U.P. Law Tribune, published by the respondent
No. J, All India Reporter Limited, were newspapers as defined in the
Working Journalists and other Newspapers Employees (Conditions of -\ ,
E Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 ('the Act') and
whether the employees of the Isl respondent engaged in the production
or publication of the said law reports were entitled to the benefits con-
ferred upon the employees of the newspaper establishments by the Act.

In exercise of the powers conferred by section 13AA and section
F 1300 of the Act, the Central Government constituted two Tribunals
with Justice Palekar as Member of each of the two Tribunals to make
recommendations in respect of fixing or revising wages of the 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 recom-
G mendations and made an order thereon on 26.12.1980 and then
accepted the remaining part of the recommendations and made another
order thereon on 20. 7.1981.

The Isl respondent had not been served with any individual notice
by the Tribunal before it passed its award. The Isl respondent also had
H not sent a reply to the questionnaire issued by the Tribunal, nor had it
774
KARAMCHARI SANGH '· ALL INDIA REPORTER 775

given any evidence before the Tribunal in respect of the matters refer-
A
red to therein.

The Deputy Labour Commissioner wrote to the Isl respondent
asking it to file its written statements in the matter of non-implementa-
tion of the Palekar Award, as the orders of the Central Government
made under section 12 of the Act were popularly called. The !st respon- B
dent submitted its reply inter alia contending that it was not running a
newspaper establishment and its publications were not newspapers and

- as such the Palekar Award was not applicable to it. The Deputy Labour
Commissioner again wrote to the 1st respondent saying that the Jst
respondent was liable to implement the order of the Central Govern-
ment made on the recommendations of the Palekar Tribunal since the
Jst respondent was a newspaper establishment. Upon receipt of this
c
notice, the Jst respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court, ques-
tioning the validity of the notice served on it by the Deputy Labour
Commissioner, calling upon it to implement the orders of the Central
Government-The Palekar Award. The High Court accepted the plea
of the Isl respondent and declared that the law reports were not news- D
papers within the meaning of section 2(b) of the Act and that the
demand made by the Deputy Labour Commissioner for compliance
with the orders made by the Central Government on the basis of the
recommendations of Justice Palekar was unsustainable. Aggrieved by
the decisioh of the High Court, the appellants moved this Court for
relief by special leave. E

Allowing the appeal, the Court,

HELD: The Court was concerned with the narrow question
whether the six law reports aforementioned being published by !he Isl
respondent were newspapers within the meaning of the Act and whether F
the employees engaged in their production or distribution were entitled
to the benefit of the orders made by the Central Government on the
basis of the Palekar Award. [78!F[

In order to be a newspaper, a work must be (i) a printed work) (ii)
a periodical, and (iii) should contain public news or comments on public G
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 was no dispute in this case
that the law reports are printed works and that they are periodicals.
The only question which remained to be considered was whether they
contained public news or comments on public news, Newspapers and H
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 3 S.C.R.

books are no doubt shown as separate items in Entry 39 of List III of the
A
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, but the distinction between them
sometimes becomes very thin or totally vanishes. [78 IG-H; 7S2A-H I

The law reports being published by the Jst respondent are reports
of recent decisions of the Supreme Court of India and the High Courts
B in India, which are supplied to it by its agents appointed at New Delhi
and other places where the High Courts are situated. These decisions
,.- •
I
are of public importance. The law declared by the Supreme Court is

-
~

binding on all the Courts in India, as provided by Article 141 of the
Constitution. The decisions of the Supreme Court-a court of record-
constitute a source of law as they are judicial precedents of the highest )r
c court of the land. They are binding on all the courts throughout India.
The decisions of every High Court being judicial precedents arc binding
I
k
on all the Courts situated in the territory under the jurisdiction of the
High Court. The decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts are
almost as important as statutes, rules and regulations passed by the
competent legislatures and other bodies. The decisions of the superior
D courts, while they settle the disputes between the parties to the proceed-
ings, are 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; lawyers and others connected with the courts and judicial
proceedings are interested in knowing the contents and effects of the
decisions. The Isl respondent and other publishers of law reports, in
the interests of their own business, vie with each other to publish the
--(
E
judgments of the Supreme Court or the High Courts as early as possible
in their law reports, published periodically-weekly, fortnightly or

.. monthly. They believe the faster the decisions are published in their
reports, the larger will be the number of subscribers. The contents of
these law reports constitute news in so far as the subscribers and }--~
F readers of these reports are concerned. lly 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 was difficult to agree with the submission of the Jst respon-
dent that the law reports did not carry any news and that the public was
not interested in them. Any decision published in the law reports of the
G Jst respondent contains information about the recent events which have
taken place in the Supreme Court or the High Courts which are public
bodies and these are matters in which public is interested. The Court "-.
found it also difficult to agree with the submission of the Isl respondent
that since the law reports are going to be preserved by the lawyers as
reference books after getting them rebound subsequently, they should
H be treated as books. The decisions contained in these law reports may

~'
KARAMCHARI SANGH v. ALL INDIA REPORTER 777

cease to be items of news after some time, but when they are received by A
the subscribers, they do possess the character of works containing
news. [782G-H; 783A-HI

Strong reliance was placed by the Isl respondent on the decision
of the High Court of Orissa in P.S. V. Iyer v. Commissioner of Sales
-~ Tax, Orissa, AIR 1960 Orissa 221, but the Court found ii difficult to 13
agree with that decision since the High Court had omitted to take into

-
~\
i
~
consideration that information about recent decisions of the Courts of'
record could be news in which the public was interested. The fact that a
law book could be used as a reference book at a later stage was not
sufficient to hold that the law report did not contain public news when it
J was received by the subscriber. [784A, G-HI c
It is sufficient 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 and also comments
on some of the recent decisions. The law Reports also contain newly
enacted Acts, Rules and Regulations, book reviews and advertisements D
relating to law books, handwriting and finger print experts, etc.,
speeches made at conferences in which the legal fraternity is interested,
etc. Though the 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 news-
paper which may after some time cease to be a newspaper and become a E
book of reference. [786G-H; 787A-B]

The Act is a beneficient legislation which is enacted for improving
the conditions of service of the employees of the newspaper establish-
ments, and 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 F
Act and is in favour of the employees for whose benefit the Act is passed
has to be accepted. [7878-C I

The Law Reports published by the Jst respondent are newspapers
and the employees employed by the Jst respondent in their production
or publication should be extended the benefit of the orders passed by G
the Central Government on the basis of the recommendations made by
the Palekar Award. [787C-DI

The judgment of the High Court was set aside and the writ peti-
tion filed by the !st respondent before the High Court was dismissed. [787D I
H
778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 3 S.C.R.

P. S. V. Iyer v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa, AIR 1960
A
Orissa 221; T. V. Ramanath & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., [1975]
Labour and Industrial Cases 488; L.D. Jain v. General Manager, Gov-
ernment of India Press and Others, ILR 1967 Punjab and Haryana 193;
Ex Parle Stillwell, [1923] 29 V.L.R. 413 and Commissioner of Sales Tax
v. Mis. Express Printing Press, AIR 1983 Bombay 191, referred to.
B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8440
of 1983. •-

1
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.4.83 of the High Court
of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2388/82.
c 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.

D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

VENKATARAMIAH, J. The question which arises for consid-
eration in this case is whether the law reports namely, All India Repor-
ter, Criminal Law Journal, Labour and Industrial Cases, Taxation Law
Reports, Allahabad Law Journal and U.P. Law Tribune published by
E the ls! 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 publica-
tion of the said law reports are entitled to the benefits conferred upon
F 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
G 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
H in the Official Gazette."
KARAMCHARI SANGH v. ALL INDIA REPORTER [VENKATARAMIAH,J.[ 779

A "newspaper employee" is defined by section 2(c) of the Act as A
any working journalist, and includes any other person employed to do
any work in, or in relation to, any newspaper establishment. "News-
paper 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. B
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 C
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, func-
tions mainly of a managerial nature. A "non-journalist newspaper
employee" means any person employed to do any work in, or in rel a- D
tion to, any newspaper establishme.nt, but does not include any such
person who is a working journalist, or is employed mainly in a manage-
rial 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. E

- 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 HA of the Act deals with similar conditions of
service of non-journalist newspaper employees. F

Section 9 of the Act authorises the Central Government to
appoint a Wage Board consisting of two persons representing emp-
loyers in relation to newspaper establishments; two persons represent-
ing 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 G
Supreme Conrt 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. Simi-
larly, section 13C of the Act provides for the constitution of a Wage
Board for the purpose of making recommendations regarding the fiJrn-
tion or revision of the rates of wages in respect of non-journalist news- H
____,. ___ ,
780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988) 3 S.C.R.

paper employees. Section BAA which was inserted by Act 6 of 1979
A
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
B has to consist of a Judge of the High Court or of the Supreme Court. )i
Similarly section 13DD of the Act empowers the Central Government
to constitute a Tribunal where it is of opinion that the Board con-
stituted under section 13C of the Act has not been able to function
effectively. Section BAA and section 13DD of the Act came into
force with effect from January 31, 1979. In exercise of the powers
~
-
'
c conferred by section BAA and section 13DD of the Act the Central
Government constituted under two separate notifications two Tribun-
k
als 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 recom-
mendations in respect of fixing or revising wages of working journalists
as well as non-working journalists. Justice Palekar made his recom-
0 mendations on 12.8.1980. In exercise of its powers under section 12 of
the Act the Central Government accepted a part of the recommenda-
tions and made an order thereon on 26.12.1980 and accepted the
remaining part of the recommendations and made another order the-
reon on 20.7.1981.

E The 1st respondent, AJI 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 Jst
F 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
G 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 tst respondent informing him that the !st
respondent was liable to implement the order of the Central Govern-
ment made on the recommendations of the Palekar Tribunal in respect
of its employees since the Isl respondent was a newspaper establish-
H ment. Immediately after the service of the said notice the Ist respon-
KARAMCHARI SANGH v. Al.LINDIA REPORTER [VENKATARAMIAH, l.] 781
t.,1'-"·~
dent filed a writ petition on the file of the High Court of Judicature at 'A
Bombay, Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition No. 2388 of 1982 questioning
the validity of the notice served on it by the Deputy Labour Commis-
sioner, 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 imp leaded as

•
B
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 1st respon-
' dent, All India Reporter Limited, that the law reports publised by it
c
J 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 rtot applicable to its establishment. The High
Court accepted the plea of the 1st respondent ant:! declared that the law
reports were not newspapers within the meaning of section 2(b) of the D
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 decicion of the
High Court the appellants have filed this appeal by special leave.
~-
E
The 1st respondent, All India Reporter Limited, publishes in
addition to the law reports referred in the first paragraph of this judg-
- ment 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 1st respondent are newspap-
~ ers within the meaning of the Act and whether the employees engaged F
in their production or distribution are entitled to the benefit of the
orders made by the Central Government on the basis of the recom-
mendations 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 G
work; (ii) a periodical; and (iii) should contain public news or com-
I ments 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 H
782 SUPREME COIJRT REPORTS [1988] 3 S.C.R.

A 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
B b_etween 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
c 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
D 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 publi-
cations 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 -{
E concerned to comment rather than to report; but newspap-
ers merge into advertising sheets, periodicals into _books
and pamphlets, and both into one another; .......... :"

The expression "news" is not defined in the Act. Several defini-
tions of the expression "news" collected from the different dictionar-
F ies 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 Isl
respondent are reports of recent decisions of the Supreme Court of
G 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
H decisions of the Supreme Court, which is a court of record, constitute a
"
~! KARAMCHARISANGH v. AIL INDIA REPORTER [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 783
'
-4-' > source of la:w as they are the judicial precedents of the highest court of
A
the land. They are binding on all the courts throughout India. Simi-
larly 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 B

• important as statutes, rules and regulations passed by the competent
legislatures and other bodies sinct they affect the public generally. It is
well-:rnown 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 c
:)' with courts and judicial proceedings who constitute a substantial sec-
tion of the public are interested in knowing the contents and the effect
of the decisions. The 1st 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 D
~ 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. Intact 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
E
~ reports are concerned.His 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 intere.s(ed in them. We are of the view that any decision
F

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
si 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 G
'I reports are going to be preserved by the lawyers as reference books
·~ r
after getting them rebound subsequently they should be treated as
-4·.).
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. H
784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 3 S.C.R.

A Strong reliance was placed on behalf of the 1st respondent on the
decision of the High Court of Orissa in P. S. V. Iyer v. Commissioner of
Sales Tax, Orissa, AIR 1960 Orissa 221 in which the question that
arose for consideration was whether a law joumal-Cuttack Law
Times, which was a non-official monthly journal containing the deci-
jll
B sions 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
•
c
Schedule to the Constitution which read as follows:

"54. Taxes on the sale or purchase of goods other than A
-
newspapers, subject to Entry 92-A of List I." 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
D sale or purchase of newspapers was in the following terms: !!
"92. Tax on the sale or purchase of newspapers and on Ji
advertisements published therein." ·;.
;..
E
After referring to the definition of the expression 'newspaper' in the
Press and Regislration 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 News-
~
'
•
paper (Price and Page) Act, 1956, etc. the High Court of Orissa held ~

F
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 news-
paper, could be taxed by the State Legislature under Entry 54ofList II
G of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. We find it dif-
ficult to agree with the above decision since the High Court of Orissa
omitted to take into consideration that information about recent deci-
•
sions 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
H contain public.news when it was received by the subscriber.
KARAMCHARI SANGH v. ALL INDIA REPORTER [VENKATARAMIAH, J. I 785

The High Court of Madras declined to follow the above decision
A
of the Orissa High Court in its decision in T. V. Ramnath and Another
v. Union of India and Others, 11975) 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 B
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 'com-
ments on public news' since it contains reports of the judg-
ments of the Courts as well as comments on such judg-
ments. Even though, the same may be primarily intended c
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 talcing interest in such
publications and the news themselves being of interest to
such persons. Therefore I am clearly of the opinion that the D
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. E
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 v. 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 publica-
tion of all kinds of news and information was a newspaper within the F
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 G
.decision of the Australian Court in Ex Parte Stillwell, [1923] 29 V.L.R.
413 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- H
786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 3 S.C.R.

A sion of the High Court of Bombay in Commissonerof Sales Tax v. M/s.
Express Printing Press, AIR 1983 Bombay 191 in which the Bombay
·High Court held that the two publications by name 'Jocker' and 'Jab-
ara' 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.
B
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
c 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
D periodicals, journals related to sciences, arts etc., were
included. A catalogue of Yugoslav newspapers and maga-
zines, for instance, includes publications relating to the fol-
lowing subjects:

Political information; economics; law and states
E administration; education; philology; natural sciences;
medicine; agriculture; technology; geography; ethno-
graphy history; archives; archaeology; literature; music;
applied art; film; chess; photography; tourism; stamp col-
lecting; physical culture and sport; humour and religion.

F 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
G Act includes not merely 'public news' but also 'comments on public
news'. Every law report contains the editorial note at the commence- .·"'· ..
men! of the decisions printed therein and also comments on some of
the recent decisions. Law reports at.o \'Ontain, newly enacts Acts,
Rules and Regulations, book reviews and advertisements relating to
law books handwriting and finger print experts etc., speeches made at
H conferences in which the legal fraternity is interested etc. Though the
KARAMCHARI SANGH v. ALL INDIA REPORTER IVENKATARAMIAH, J.l 787

publication of these items by itself may not occupy a substantial part of A
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.
B
The Act in question is a beneficent legislation which is enacted
for the purpose of improving the conditions of service of the emp-
loyees 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.
c
We are of the view that the law reports published by the Ist
respondent are neW$JJapers 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
D
Palekar Award. We, accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the judg-
ment 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.