{"id":45721,"date":"1961-09-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1961-09-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bombay-union-of-journalists-vs-the-hindu-bombay-and-another-on-27-september-1961"},"modified":"2018-01-17T03:04:47","modified_gmt":"2018-01-16T21:34:47","slug":"the-bombay-union-of-journalists-vs-the-hindu-bombay-and-another-on-27-september-1961","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bombay-union-of-journalists-vs-the-hindu-bombay-and-another-on-27-september-1961","title":{"rendered":"The Bombay Union Of Journalists … vs The, Hindu’, Bombay, And Another on 27 September, 1961"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The Bombay Union Of Journalists … vs The, Hindu’, Bombay, And Another on 27 September, 1961<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 318, \t\t 1962 SCR (3) 893<\/div>\n
Author: S C.<\/div>\n
Bench: Shah, J.C.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHE BOMBAY UNION OF JOURNALISTS AND OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE, HINDU', BOMBAY, AND ANOTHER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n27\/09\/1961\n\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nWANCHOO, K.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1963 AIR  318\t\t  1962 SCR  (3) 893\n CITATOR INFO :\n E\t    1966 SC 182\t (7,11)\n R\t    1970 SC 737\t (6,7,8)\n RF\t    1970 SC1205\t (6)\n R\t    1975 SC1660\t (6)\n\n\nACT:\nIndustrial  Dispute-Individual\tDispute-If and when  can  be\nconverted  into industrial dispute-Industrial Disputes\tAct,\n1947 (14 of 1947), s. 12 (5).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  first  respondent,\t the 'Hindu', Bombay,  which  was  a\nnewspaper establishment terminated the services of the third\nappellant as its correspondent and declined to accede to the\nrequest of the latter for his re-instatement.  His case\t was\ntaken up and supported by the Bombay Union of journalists, a\ntrade  union,  of which membership was open to\tall  persons\ndepending  on journalism for their livelihood.\tHe  was\t not\nsupported  by  any union of the employees  of  the  'Hindu',\nBombay, or a number of its workmen.  The Government referred\nthe   dispute  for  adjudication  under\t s.  12(5)  of\t the\nIndustrial Disputes Act,\n\t\t\t    894\n1947.\tThe  Industrial\t Tribunal  rejected  the   reference\nholding\t that the dispute was merely an\t individual  dispute\nbetween the 'Hindu', Bombay, and the third appellant who had\nnot been supported by an appreciable number of employees  of\n'Hindu', Bombay.  On appeal,\nHeld, that the applicability of the Industrial Disputes\t Act\nto  an\tindividual dispute as distinguished from  a  dispute\ninvolving a group of workmen is excluded, unless the workmen\nas  a  body or a considerable section of  them\tmake  common\ncause with the individual workmen.\nCentral\t Provinces  Transport  Services\t Ltd.  v.  Raghunath\nGopal.Patwardhan,<\/a> (1956) S.C.R. 956 and The Newspapers\tLtd.\nv.  The State Industrial Tribunal, U.P.<\/a> (1957)\tS.C.R.\t754,\nfollowed.\nMembers\t of  a union who were not workmen  of  the  employer\nagainst\t whom the dispute was sought to be raised could\t not\nby  their  support  convert an individual  dispute  into  an\nindustrial dispute.  Persons who sought to support the cause\nof  a workman must themselves be directly and  substantially\ninterested in the dispute and persons who were not employees\nof the same employer could not be regarded as so interested.\nWorkmen\t of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Management of  Dimakuchi\nTea Estate,<\/a> (1958) S.C.R. 1156, followed.\nIn  each case in ascertaining whether an individual  dispute\nhad acquired the character of an industrial dispute the test\nwas  whether  at the date of the reference the\tdispute\t was\ntaken  up  and\tsupported by the union\tof  workmen  of\t the\nemployer   against  whom  the  dispute\twas  raised  by\t  an\nindividual  workman  or\t by an appreciable  number  of\tsuch\nworkmen.   The\tjurisdiction  of the labour  court  was\t not\naffected  by  the subsequent withdrawal of  support  by\t the\nworkmen\t who  originally  sponsored the\t cause.\t  Nor  could\nsubsequent  support by a union of concerned workmen  convert\nwhat Was an individual dispute on the date of reference into\nan industrial dispute and confer jurisdiction.\tThe Hindu v.\nThe  Working  Journalist of the Hindu in Madras,  (1959)  II\nL.L.J. 348 and Working Journalist of the Hindu v. The  Hindu\n(1961) 1 L.L.J. 288, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.  Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1961.
\nAppeal\tby  special leave from the award  dated\t October  3,
\n1959,  of  the\tIndustrial Tribunal,  Bombay,  in  Reference
\n(I.T.) No. 33 of 1959.\n<\/p>\n
Ramaswamy,  E.\tUdavarathnam  and  S.  S.  Shukla,  for\t the
\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n
895<\/span><\/p>\n
R.   Ramamurthy\t  Iyer\t and  R.  Gopalkrishnan,   for\t the
\nrespondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n
1961.\tSeptember  27.\t The  Judgment\tof  the\t Court\t was
\ndelivered by
\nSHAH.\tJ.-This is an appeal with special leave\t against  an
\naward  of the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay. By its award\t the
\nTribunal  rejected  the\t reference holding that\t it  had  no
\njurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute submitted to  it
\nby the Government of Bombay.\n<\/p>\n
Salivateeswaran\t (the third appellant) who claimed to  be  a
\nfull  time  employee of the first  respondent.\tThe  Hindu”,
\nBombay-addressed  a  letter  on February 15,  1956,  to\t the
\nManaging  Editor of “The Hindu”-a daily newspaper  published
\nat  Madras intimating that he was ‘proceeding to  Europe  on
\nMarch  1, 1956.\t On February 16, 1956, the Assistant  Editor
\nof “The Hindu” informed Salivateeswaran that even though the
\nlatter\twas not a full time employee of ‘-The  Hindu”,\tthey
\ncould  “not allow frequent breaks in the performance of”  of
\nhis  duties and that they would have to relieve him  of\t his
\nduties as correspondent from March 1, 1956, if he  proceeded
\nto  Europe  as\tarranged  by  him.   Salivateeswaran  having
\npersisted  in  carrying\t out his  project  by  letter  dated
\nFebruary  29, 1956, he was informed by the  Management\tthat
\nlie  ceased to be a correspondent of “The Hindu” from  March
\n1,   1956.   After  returning  from  his  tour\tof   Europe,
\nSalivateeswaran, on July 5, 1956, demanded reinstatement and
\ncalled\tupon  the  management of “The Hindu”  to  treat\t the
\nperiod of his absence out of India as leave.  The management
\nof  “The  Hindu” having declined to accede to  that  demand,
\nSalivateeswaran\t filed\tan application under s.\t 17  of\t the
\nBombay\tWorking\t Journalist  (Conditions  of  Service)\t and
\nMiscellaneous  Provisions  Act\t45  of\t1955,  claiming\t Rs.
\n1,57,172-8-0  under diverse heads alleging that\t termination
\nof  his\t employment  was wrongful and that  it\tamounted  to
\nretrenchment.\tThe manage, meat of “The Hindu” denied\tthat
\nSalivateeswarn
\n896<\/span>
\nwas  their employee and submitted that the  Authority  under
\nAct  45\t of  1955 had no  jurisdiction\tto  decide  disputed
\nquestions  of fact.  The Authority rejected this  contention
\nholding\t that he was competent to decide disputed  questions
\narising\t in  the case” before him.  The management  of\t“The
\nHindu”\tpresented a petition under Act. 32 of the  Constitu-
\ntion  for a direction quashing the order of the\t Authority.,
\ncontending  that  s.  17  of the Act  did  not\tempower\t the
\nAuthority  to  act  as a  forum\t for  adjudicating  disputed
\nclaims.\t  This Court upheld (see Kasturi and Sons  (Private)
\nLtd.  v. Salivateeswaran<\/a>(1)] the plea of the  Management  of
\n“The  Hindu”,  but dismissed the petition  holding  that  no
\nfundamental  right  of the Management was infringed  by\t the
\norder passed by the Authority.\tActing on the view expressed
\nby  this  Court the Authority declined to proceed  with\t the
\napplication,  because disputed questions of fact fell to  be
\ndetermined in the petition before him.\n<\/p>\n
“The  Hindu”  had an office in Bombay since  1937.   At\t the
\nmaterial time., “The Hindu” had besides Salivateeswaran only\n<\/p>\n
-nine employees-seven serving on the administrative side and
\ntwo  journalists-Venkateawaran and Tiwari.   Salivateeswaran
\nand  Venkateswaran  were  members of  the  Bombay  Union  of
\nJournalists: Tiwari, the other journalist employee,, was not
\na member of the Union.\tThe Bombay Union of Journalists is a
\nTrade Union, the membership of which is open to all  persons
\nwho  depend  for their livelihood upon the practice  of\t the
\nprofession  of\tjournalism, including  press  photographers,
\nartists,  cartoonist and free-lance writers.  This Union  is
\nadmittedly not a Union of employees of “The Hindu”,  Bombay,
\nbut  it\t is  a Union of all persons  who  depend  for  their
\nlivelihood  upon  journalism in Bombay.\t By  its  resolution
\ndated  August  16,  1956, the Bombay  Union  of\t Journalists
\nsupported  the claim of Salivateeswaran in  the\t application
\nfiled by him under s. 17 of Act 45 of 1955.\n<\/p>\n
(1) [1959] S. C. R 1.\n<\/p>\n
 897<\/span><\/p>\n
Between April 9, 1958, and April 15 1958, four letters\twere
\naddressed  by  225,  members  of  the  Union  (amongst\twhom
\nVenkateswaran was not included) informing the Union that the
\ntermination   of  employment  of   Salivateeswaran.   raised
\n“questions  of\tprinciple and it was  necessary\t that  there
\nshould be a proper adjudication in which the principles\t may
\nbe  settled”  and  therefore they  supported  the  cause  of
\nSalivateeswaran\t  and  requested  the  Union  to  take\t all
\nappropriate  steps  to\tapproach the  state  of\t Bombay\t for
\nreferring  the\tdispute\t to  an\t appropriate  tribunal\t for
\nadjudication  unders. 10 (1)(c) of the\tIndustrial  Disputes
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
The   Union  claims  that  these  letters  amounted   to   a
\nrequisition for calling a meeting and that they were  placed
\nbefore an adjourned meeting of the General Body on April 17,
\n1958,  held under the chairmanship of one D. V. Nathan,\t and
\nin  that  meeting it was resolved: to support the  cause  of
\nSalivateeswaran\t in the dispute with “The Hindu”Bombay.\t  On
\nApril  25, 1958, the Union wrote to the Proprietor  of\t“The
\n‘Hindu”;   Bombay   to\t settle\t the   dispute\t raised\t  by
\nSalivateeswaran.   “The\t Hindu” Bombay\thaving\tdeclined  to
\naccede\tto  the request, the Union  moved  the\tConciliation
\nOfficer\t appointed  under  the Industrial  Disputes  Act  to
\nintervene.  The dispute was taken up for Conciliation by the
\nConciliation  Officer,\tBombay, but  after  holding  several
\nmeetings  with the parties, the Conciliation Officer by\t his
\nreport\tdated  December\t 5, 1958, reported  failure  in\t his
\nefforts to bring about conciliation Thereafter, on  February
\n9,  1959, the State of Bombay referred the  dispute  between
\n“‘The  Hindu”, Bombay, and Salivateeswaran for\tadjudication
\nunder  s.  12(5) of the Industrial Disputes  Act,1947.\t The
\norder  of  the\tGovernment, the\t effect\t whereof  falls\t for
\ndetermination in this case is as follows:-
\n“No.   AJN.  7458-H-Whereas  the Government  of\t Bombay\t has
\nconsidered the report submitted by the Conciliation  Officer
\nunder sub-section (4) of section 12 of the Industrial
\n898<\/span>
\nDisputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947), in respect of the  dispute
\nbetween\t  the  Hindu,  Bombay  and  the\t  workman   (Working
\nJournalists) employed under it over the demands mentioned in
\nthe Schedule appended hereto;\n<\/p>\n
And  whereas  the Government of Bombay are  considering\t the
\naforesaid  report  is  satisfied that there is\ta  case\t for
\nreference of the dispute to a Tribunal;\n<\/p>\n
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by\tsub-
\nsection\t (5)  of the Section 12 of the\tIndustrial  Disputes
\nAct, 1947 (XIV of 1947), read with Section 3 of the  Working
\nJournalists   (Conditions  of  Service)\t and   Miscellaneous
\nProvisions Act, 1955 (XIV of 1955), the Government of Bombay
\nhereby\trefers\tthe’ said dispute for  adjudication  to\t the
\nTribunal  consisting of Shri M. H.  Meher  constituted-under
\nGovernment   Notification,   Labour  and,   Social   Welfare
\nDepartment, No. IDA. 1157(b) dated the 12th March, 1957.”
\nBy the Schedule, the claim of Salivateeswaran to receive  in
\nthe aggregate Rs. 1,52,172-8-0 under, diverse heads was\t set
\nout.\n<\/p>\n
“The Hindu”, Bombay, challenged the competence of the  State
\nGovernment to refer this dispute’ on three grounds: (1) that
\nthere  was no industrials establishment, of “The  Hindu”  in
\nBombay\tand,  therefore,  the  Industrial  Tribunal  had  no
\njurisdiction  in. the matter; (2) that\tSalivateeswaran\t was
\nnot  a working journalist within the meaning of the Act\t and
\nwas not employed as such by “The.Hindu” , and there being no
\nrelationship  of employer and employee between “The  Hindu”,
\nand  Salivateeswaran,  the  Industrial\t‘Tribunal’  had\t  no
\njurisdiction.  to  adjudicate upon the dispute\tand(3)\tthat
\nthere was no dispute between the Working Journalists of “The
\nHindu”‘, Bombay , on the one hand and the Management on\t the
\nother
\n899<\/span>
\nand  the  dispute raised by Salivateeswaran  was  merely  an
\nindividual dispute which was not supported by an appreciable
\nnumber\tof  employees of “The Hindu” Bombay.   The  Tribunal
\nrejected  the  first and the second grounds but\t upheld\t the
\nthird, and holding that the dispute was merely an individual
\ndispute\t between  Salivateeswaran and “The  Hindu”,  Bombay,
\nwhich  had  not been supported by an appreciable  number  of
\nemployees  of “The Hindu”, Bombay, the Government of  Bombay
\nhad no jurisdiction to refer the dispute to the Tribunal
\nThe terms of reference by the Government of Bombay under  s.
\n12(2) indicate that the dispute was primarily between  ‘,The
\nHindu” Bombay, and the appellant a-single employee  relating
\nto his individual claim in which the other employees of “The
\nHindu”,\t Bombay, were, not directly interested.\t In  Central
\nProvinces   Transport  Services\t Ltd.  v.  Raghunath   Gopal
\nPatwardhan<\/a>  (1),  this\tCourt after setting  out  the  three
\npossible  views\t on  the question whether a  dispute  by  an
\nindividual workman may be regarded as an industrial  dispute
\nwithin\tthe  meaning of s. 2(k) of the\tIndustrial  Disputes
\nAct, 1947 observed.. “The preponderance of judicial  opinion
\nis clearly in favour of the last of the three views  ,stated
\nabove  (i.  e. a dispute between an employer  and  a  single
\nemployee cannot per se be an industrial dispute, but it\t may
\nbecome\tone  if it is taken up by the Union or a  number  of
\nworkmen\t  and  there  is  considerable\treason\tbehind\t it.
\nNotwithstanding that the language of s. 2(k) is wide  enough
\nto  cover  a  dispute  between\tan  employer  and  a  single
\nemployee,  the\tscheme of the Industrial Disputes  Act\tdoes
\nappear\tto contemplate that the machinery  provided  therein
\nshould\tbe  set\t in motion, to settle  only  disputes  which
\ninvolve the rights of workmen as a class and that a  dispute
\ntouching  the  individual  right,%  of\ta  workman  was\t not
\nintended to be the subject of an adjudication under the Act,
\nwhen the same had not been taken
\n(1)  [1956] S. C. R. 956.\n<\/p>\n
900<\/span><\/p>\n
up  by\tthe  Union or a number of workmen.   This  view\t was
\nreiterated  in\tThe Newspapers Ltd. v.The  State  industrial
\nTribunal.   U. P., (i) Therefore, the applicability  of\t the
\nindustrial   Disputes  Act  to\tan  individual\tdispute\t  as
\ndistingushed from a dispute involving a’ group of workmen  a
\nexcluded,  unless the workmen as: a’ body or a\tconsiderable
\nsection of them make common cause with individual workman.
\nThe  dispute,  in ;the present case, being prima  facie,  an
\nindividual   dispute,  in  order  that\tit  may\t become\t  an
\nindustrial dispute it bad to be established that it had been
\ntaken up by the Union of employees of “The, Hindu”,  Bombay,
\nor  by\tan appreciable number of employees of  “The  Hindu”,
\nBombay.\t  Counsel  for\tthe  appellant\tcontended  that\t the
\ndispute was supported by the Bombay Union of Journalists  of
\nwhich  Salivateeswaran was a member and that, in any  event,
\nit  was supported by Venkateswaran and Tiwari, who were\t the
\nonly  other  employees\tin  this  establishment.   He\talso
\ncontended that in any event the dispute having been taken up
\nby the Indian Federation of Working Journalists after it was
\nreferred  to the Tribunal, it had become an industrial\tdis-
\npute.\n<\/p>\n
By  its\t constitution the Bombay Union of Journalists  is  a
\nUnion not of employees of one employer, but of all employees
\nin  the\t industry of journalism in Bombay.  Support  of\t the
\ncause,\tby the Union, will not in our judgment\tconvert\t the
\nindividual dispute of one of its members into an  industrial
\ndispute.’  The\tdispute\t between “The  Hindu”,\tBombay,\t and
\nSalivateeswaran\t  was\tin  respect  of\t  alleged   wrongful
\ntermination of employment; it could acquire the character of
\nan  industrial\tdispute only if it was proved that  it\twas,
\nbefore\tit  was,  referred, supported by the  Union  of\t the
\nemployees of “The Hindu”, Bombay, or by an
\n(1)  [1957] S. C. R. 754.\n<\/p>\n
 901<\/span><\/p>\n
appreciable number of its employees. in Workmen of Dimakuchi
\nTea Estate v. The , Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate\t(1).
\nThis  Court  held  by a majority that the two  tests  of  an
\nindustrial I dispute as defined by sub-s. (k) of s. 2 of the
\nIndustrial  Disputes Act, 1947, must,, therefore be-(1)\t the
\ndispute\t must be a real dispute capable of being settled  by
\nrelief given by one party to the other and (2) the person in
\nrespect\t of whom the dispute is raised must be one in  whose
\nemployment,   non-employment,\tterms  of   employment,\t  or
\nconditions  of labour (as the case may be), the\t parties  to
\nthe dispute have a direct or substantial interest, and\tthis
\nmust depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.  In
\nthat case, certain employees sought to raise a dispute about
\na person who was not a workman.\t In the present case members
\nof  the Union who were not workmen of the  employer  against
\nwhom the dispute was sought to be raised, seek by supporting
\nthe  dispute  to convert what is prima facie  an  individual
\ndispute into an industrial dispute.  The principle that\t the
\npersons\t who  seek to support the cause of  a  workman\tmust
\nthemselves  be directly and substantially interested in\t the
\ndispute\t in our, view applies to this class of cases also  :
\npersons\t who  are not employees of the\tthe,  same  employer
\ncannot\tbe regarded as so interested, that by their  support
\nthey  may convert an individual dispute into  an  industrial
\ndispute.  The mere support to his cause by the Bombay  Union
\nof   Journalists  cannot  therefore  assist  the  claim\t  of
\nSalivateeswaran\t so  as\t to convert it\tinto  an  industrial
\ndispute.\n<\/p>\n
But  counsel for the appellants submits\t that  Venkateswaran
\nbeing  a member of the Bombay Union of Journalists,  support
\nof the cause by that Union amounted to espousal of the cause
\nby Venkateswaran, and’ having regard to the fact that  there
\nwere  only  three  employees who were  journalists  of\t“The
\nHindu” Bombay, out of whom,
\n(1)  [1958] S. C. R. 1156.\n<\/p>\n
902<\/span><\/p>\n
Venkateswaran had supported the cause, the dispute  acquired
\nthe character of an industrial dispute.\t It is true that the
\nExecutive Committee of the  Bombay Union of Journalists\t had
\nin   August   1956,resolved   to  support   the\t  cause\t  of
\nSalivateeswaran\t but that resolution was in respect  of\t the
\napplication under Act 45 of 1955.  The Union appeared before
\nthe Authority appointed by the Government of Bombay and also
\nin  this  Court\t in  the  petition  under  Art.\t 32  of\t the
\nConstitution,  but  that  support cannot,  in  our  judgment
\nasssit\tthe  claim  now made by\t Salivateswaran.   The\tpro-
\nceedings under s. 17 of the Working Journalists\t (Conditions
\nof  Service)  Act terminated when the Authority\t refused  to
\nproceed with the petition.  Again, there is nothing to\tshow
\nthat Venkateswaran had participated in any of these proceed-
\nings.\n<\/p>\n
Venkateswaran\tand  Tiwari  filed  affidavits\tbefore\t the
\nTribunal  stating that the dispute  between  Salivateeswaran
\nand  the  management of “The Hindu” was\t purely\t a  personal
\naffair of the former and that they had not made common cause
\nwith him in regard to the dispute or adopted his dispute  as
\ntheir  own.   Venkateswaran  and  Tiwari  stated  in   their
\naffidavits  that  they\thad not at any time,  nor  did\tthey
\nsupport\t   Salivateeswaran’s\tclaim\tin    any    manner.
\nVenkateswaran  also  stated  that he had  not  at  any\ttime
\nauthorised  the\t Bombay\t Union of  Journalists\tto  take  up
\nSalivateeswaran’s ,matter” and to raise the dispute thereon.
\nThe affidavits filed by Venkateswaran and Tiwari were almost
\nin  identical terms and it may reasonably be  inferred\tthat
\nthese employees had acted in concert, but there is no reason
\nto suppose that they were, as contended by  Salivateeswaran,
\ncoerced into filing the affidavits.\n<\/p>\n
Counsel\t  for  the,  appellants\t strongly  relied   upon   a
\nresolution passed at an Extraordinary Meeting of the  Bombay
\nUnion  of  Journalists
\n903<\/span>
\ndated\tApril\t17,  1958,  to\ttake  up  the\tdispute\t  of
\nSalivateeswaran\t against  “The\tHindu” under s.\t 10  of\t the
\nIndustrial   Disputes\tAct  to\t demand\t reliefs   for\t the
\n“retrenched    journalist  Salivateeswaran”.  But   evidence
\nin   support of this resolution is very unsatisfactory.\t For
\nreasons to be presently set out, we are of the view that the
\nevidence  tends\t to establish the plea raised by  the  first
\nrespondent  that  the record of the alleged  resolution\t was
\nfabricated   with   a\tview  to   support   the   case\t  of
\nSalivateeswaran.\n<\/p>\n
The  alleged meeting of April 17, 1958, was not convened  as
\nan  Extraordinary  General  meeting of\tthe  Union.   It  is
\nclaimed\t that  it  was an  adjourned  meeting,\tthe  earlier
\nmeeting\t having been held on April 5, 1958,  and  adjourned.
\nMahatame–the  Secretary of the Union at the  relevant\ttime
\ndeposed that a requisition having’ been received for calling
\na  meeting the,, requisition was considered in\tthe  meeting
\ndated  April 17, 1958, and a resolution supporting the\tcase
\nof  Salivateeswaran  was passed.  In  cross-examination,  he
\nadmitted  that the agenda of the meeting was  not  available
\nand that he was deposing about what happened in the  meeting
\nfrom memory.  He stated that there were cyclostyled  coppies
\nof the agenda which were destroyed and no coppies were kept;
\nthat there was no agenda of the meeting of April 17 and that
\nno copies of the notice were maintained; that no minutes  of
\nthe General Body meeting were maintained and that there\t was
\nnothing\t in  writing to show who attended  the\tmeetings  of
\nApril 5 and April 17 and ,’all that happens in General\tBody
\nmeetings  is recorded in annual reports”.  He admitted\tthat
\nthe  requisitions were received after the 5th of  April\t and
\ntinder the rules of the Union, 15 days’ notice was necessary
\nfor convening a meeting.  He stated that he had received all
\nthe  requisitions before April 17, but there was  no  record
\nabout\tthe  receipt  of  the  requisition.   According\t  to
\nMahatame, 225 members had signed the requisition and at\t the
\nmeeting
\n904<\/span>
\nthey  had asked that the matter be brought up,\t  but  there
\nwas  no record as to who was present. He asserted  that\t the
\nnotice\tof  the meeting dated\tApril 17 was issued  but  he
\ncould  not  say\t whether  it  was  issued  on  April  9\t  or
\nthereafter.   It  is difficult to accept  the  testimony  of
\nMahatame   that\t even  though  minutes\tof   the   Executive
\nCommittee’s  meetings were maintained, records\trelating  to
\nthe  General Body meetings were not  preserved.\t  Mahatame’s
\nexplanation  that the agenda was cyclostyled and  thereafter
\ndestroyed is too crude to be accepted.\tOther  circumstances
\nto  which we will presently advert make it abundantly  clear
\nthat  the story about the resolution having been  passed  on
\nApril 17, 1958, is untrue.\n<\/p>\n
The  original resolution was produced in the course  of\t the
\ntrial  as  Ext.\t  U-86.\t  This\tdocument  contains  inherent
\nevidence  that\tit  was\t not made on  April  17,  1958.\t  It
\npurports to be dated April 17, 1958, and bears the signature
\nof  D. V. Nathan, the president, but by some  mischance\t the
\nyear  was  originally written as 1959 and  then\t altered  to
\n1958.\tThis  may  very well indicate that  the\t writer\t was
\nwriting\t in 1959 and not in 1958.  D. V. Nathan, who  it  is
\nstated\tpresided  over the meeting, has not  been  examined.
\nMahatame stated that in the Annual Report of the year  1957-
\n58  which  was published sometime at the end  of  the  year,
\n1958, there is a reference to the meeting of April 17, 1958,
\nbut  in the report the meeting of April 5 is mentioned,\t and
\nthe  meeting  of  April 17 is not  at  all  mentioned.\t The
\nletters of the members are not in truth requisitions at all:
\nthey  are merely requests made by some members to the  Union
\nto support the cause of Salivateeswaran, and do not  request
\nthe  Secretary\tto  call  a  meeting.\tIf  a\trequisition,
\naccording  to the rules was in fact received, a meeting\t had
\nto  be\tcalled\tafter notice of 15 days\t for  that  purpose.
\nUnder  al. 7(c) of the Constitution and Rules of the  Bombay
\nUnion of Journalists meetings of the General Body require
\n905<\/span>
\n15  days’  clear  notice  except when  a  meeting  has\tbeen
\nadjourned in which case a week’s notice will suffice.  It is
\nalso  provided by cl. (g) that resolutions  regarding  other
\nbusiness  which\t a member may desire to be taken up  at\t any
\nmeeting\t should\t also be given seven clear days\t before\t the
\nmeeting.   Under el. 19, a notice of a General Body  meeting
\nhas to be sent to every member individually by the Secretary
\nin the time prescribed in cl. 7 of the Constitution, and  by
\ncl.  18,  sub-cl. 2 (a), the Secretary has to  maintain\t the
\nminutes of all meetings, conduct all correspondence, convene
\nall  meetings,\texercise supervision over  the\taffairs\t and
\nactivities of the Union.  Of the alleged meeting dated April
\n17,  1958,  clear  notice  of 15 days  was  not\t given.\t  Of
\nresolutions  regarding\tother business which  a\t member\t may
\ndesire to be taken up at any meeting 7 days, clear notice is
\nrequired  by  the rules, but it is not shown  to  have\tbeen
\ngiven.\t There is no evidence that the notice for a  General
\nBody meeting of the time prescribed under cl. 7 was given to
\nthe  members,  and  the\t Secretary  bad\t made  a   startling
\nstatement  that\t be  did not maintain  any  minutes  of\t the
\nmeeting, but had copied out the resolution on a loose  sheet
\nof  paper.  The subsequent conduct of the office bearers  of
\nthe  Union also strongly, supports the contention raised  by
\ncounsel\t  for  the  respondents\t that  the   resolution\t  is
\nfabricated  at some later date.\t In the letter\tdated  April
\n25, 1958, it was stated that the Bombay Union of Journalists
\nhad taken up the dispute of Salivateeswaran and called\tupon
\n“The  Hindu”,  Bombay, to settle the dispute  amicably,\t but
\nthere is no reference of the resolution passed on April\t 17,
\n1958.\tThe  resolution\t was  not  mentioned  even  in\t the
\nstatement  of  claim  before the  Industrial  Tribunal.\t  In
\nparagraph  33 of the statement of claim it was\tstated\tthat
\nmore than 200 members of the Union had written to the  Union
\nsupporting  the\t working  journalist  (Salivateeswaran)\t and
\nurging\tthe Union to take up his case under Industrial\tDis-
\nputes Act, but there was no reference to the reso-\n<\/p>\n
906<\/span><\/p>\n
lution\tdated April 17, 1958.  The Hindu” in paragraph 4  of
\nits  reply  has\t expressly  averred  that  apart  from\t the
\nstatement  that\t 225  members of  the  Union  requested\t its
\nSecretary to take up the Cause of Salivateeswaran, there  is
\nnothing\t to  show  that the Union as  such  had\t Passed\t any
\nresolution or authorised its Secretary to take up  Salivate-
\neswaran’s cause and to raise an industrial dispute  thereon.
\nThis  statement\t of  “The Hindu” was not  challenged  by  an
\naffidavit   in\t reply\t alleging   that   the\t claim\t  of
\nSalivateeswaran was supported by a resolution of the  Union.
\nWhen Venkateswaran was examined on June 12, 1959, he was not
\nasked in cross-examination about the resolution.  Even\twhen
\nSalivateeswaran was examined the resolution was not produced
\n:  it was for the first time produced on July 9, 1959.\t The
\nletters\t requesting  the  Union\t to  espouse  the  cause  of
\nSalivateeswaran\t were written between April 9 and April\t 15,
\n1958,  and it is suggested that the matter was taken  up  in
\nthe meeting of April 17.  If the meeting of April 17 was  an
\nadjourned meeting (the previous meeting being of April 5) in
\nthe agenda there could be no reference to the  consideration
\nof  these  letters and it could not take up  fresh  matters.
\nBeyond\tthe  bare  statement of Mahatame  supported  by\t the
\ninterested   testimony\tof  Salivateeswaran  there,  is\t  no
\nreliable  evidence  that  in the meeting  of  the  17th\t the
\nSecretary moved the resolution about Salivateeswaran and  it
\nwas  adopted  without opposition  the  documentary  evidence
\nwhich  should  normally have been in existence if  the\tcase
\nthat  the Union passed a resolution on April 17,  1958,\t was
\ntrue,  has not been produced on the plea either that it\t was
\nnot maintained’ or that it was destroyed.  Even on the\tcase
\n‘of the appellants, there is nothing to show that notice  of
\nthe  meeting  dated  April 17 convened for  the\t purpose  of
\nconsidering the requisition was ever given to  Venkateswaran
\nand if it was not given, by the mere passing of a resolution
\nby  other members ‘of the Union the case of  the  appellants
\nthat the claim
\n 907<\/span>
\nof Salivateeswaran was supported by Venkateswaran cannot  be
\nsupported.\n<\/p>\n
The  Tribunal  observed\t that if even  after  the  reference
\nVenkateswaran  and  Tiwari ceased to support  the  cause  of
\nSalivateeswaran, being the only person who could support the
\ncause, the reference must fail, and in support of that\tview
\nrelied\tupon  the judgment of a Single Judge of\t the  Madras
\nHigh  Court in The Hindu v. The Working Journalists  of\t the
\nHindu  in  Madras  (1), but this  decision  has\t since\tbeen
\noverruled  by a Division Bench of the Madras High, Court  in
\nthe  Working Journalists of the Hindu v. The Hindu<\/a> (2).\t  In
\nthat  case  the Court observed : ,It must be hold  that\t the
\njurisdiction of the labour court to proceed with the  matter
\nwholly depends on whether the industrial dispute referred to
\nit  for adjudication existed or was apprehended on the\tdate
\nof  the\t reference and not on any subsequent  date.   Having
\nregard to the relevant statutory provisions it must be\theld
\nthat  the jurisdiction of the labour court to  proceed\twith
\nand adjudicate upon an industrial dispute stems from and  is
\nsustained,  until  it makes an award and  the  same  becomes
\nenforceable, by the reference itself which has been made  on
\nthe  basis of an industrial dispute existing or\t apprehended
\non  the date of the reference and that the  jurisdiction  of
\nthe labour court to proceed in the matter is not in any\t way
\naffected  by  the fact that subsequent to the  date  of\t the
\nreference, the workers or a substantial section of them\t who
\nhad  originally sponsored the cause, had later\tresiled\t and
\nwithdrawn   from  it.”\tIn  our\t view,\tthese\tobservations
\ncorrectly  set out the effect of a subsequent withdrawal  of
\nsupport\t by  the workmen of a cause previously\tespoused  by
\nthem.\tIn each case in ascertaining whether  an  individual
\ndispute has acquired the character of an industrial  dispute
\nthe test is whether at the date of the reference the  depute
\nwas taken up as supported by the Union of the workmen of the
\nemployer against whom the
\n(1) [1959] 11 L. L. J. 348.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1961] 1  L. L. J. 288.\n<\/p>\n
908<\/span><\/p>\n
dispute\t is  raised  by\t an  individual\t workman  or  by  an
\nappreciable  number of workmen.\t If Venkateswaran or  Tiwari
\nhad  prior to the date of the reference supported the  cause
\nof  Salivateeswaran,  by  their\t subsequent  affidavits\t the
\nreference  could not have been invalidated.  But as we\thave
\nalready observed there was, in fact, no support to the cause
\nof  Salivateeswaran  by\t Venkateswaran\tor  by\tTiwari\t and
\ntherefore  the\tdispute continued to  remain  an  individual
\ndispute.\n<\/p>\n
The effect of the support to the cause of Salivateeswaran by
\nthe  Indian Federation of Working Journalists and the  claim
\nfounded\t  thereon   does   not\t call\tfor   any   detailed
\nconsideration.\tAfter the reference was submitted and it was
\npending hearing before the Tribunal a letter was written  by
\nthe   President\t  of  the  Indian  Federation\tof   Working
\nJournalists to the General Secretary of the Bombay Union  of
\nJournalists  on April 16, 1959, stating that the  Federation
\nhad  lent  support to Salivateeswaran in the  writ  petition
\nfiled  by  “The\t Hindu” in the Supreme Court  and  that\t the
\nFederation  did\t so as it was a test case.   Another  letter
\ndated April 17, 1959, was addressed by the General Secretary
\nof  the\t Indian\t Federation of Working\tJournalists  to\t the
\nGeneral\t Secretary,  Bombay  Union  of\tJournalists  Bombay,
\nstating\t that  they had advised Salivateeswaran\t to  file  a
\npetition  before  the Presiding Officer\t of  the  Industrial
\nCourt  in  Bombay  and had also intervened  in\tthe  Supreme
\nCourt,\tand further that the Federation fully supported\t all
\nactions\t taken\tby the Bombay Union of\tJournalists  to\t get
\njustice\t for Salivateeswaran, The Secretary of the Union  by
\nletter\tdated  July  9, 1959, wrote  to\t the  President\t and
\nSecretary-General  of  the  Indian  Federation\tof   Working
\nJournalists that Salivateeswaran’s case was being heard\t for
\na  week\t and  that Salivateeswaran  was\t to  undergo  cross-
\nexamination on the next day and that Mahatame, the  previous
\nSecretary was to give evidence.\t Ho further stated “I am  of
\nopinion that we must produce some document whereby it
\n\t\t\t    909<\/span>
\nwill be possible to prove that the Federation had  supported
\nSalivateeswaran’s case” and requested the Federation to send
\na document in the form of a minute of a meeting or a  letter
\nor a resolution and if there was none such on the record, to
\npass a fresh resolution supporting the Bombay Union’s action
\nregarding  Salivateeswaran’s  case and to send the  same  by
\nreturn of post.\t Taking a clue from this letter, on July 24,
\n1959,  the  President of the Federation sent a copy  of\t the
\nresolution  alleged to have been adopted by the\t members  of
\nthe  Working Committee of the Indian Federation\t of  Working
\nJournalists  regarding\tSalivateeswaran’s case.\t  The  draft
\nresolution sought to support the case of the Bombay Union of
\nJournalists  before the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, and  to
\n“‘direct the Union to fight the case with all its strength”.
\nThis   resolution  is  alleged\tto  have  been\t passed\t  by
\ncirculation  after  the\t commencement  of  the\tadjudication
\nproceedings.   If  the\tdispute\t was  in  its  inception  an
\nindividual dispute and continued to be such till the date of
\nthe  reference by the Government of Bombay, it could not  be
\nconverted  into an industrial dispute by support  subsequent
\nto the reference even of workmen interested in the  dispute.
\nWe  have already held that subsequent withdrawal of  support
\nwill  not  take\t away  the  jurisdiction  of  an  industrial
\ntribunal.  On the same reasoning subsequent support will not
\nconvert\t what  was  an individual dispute  at  the  time  of
\nreference into an industrial dispute.  The resolution of the
\nIndian\tFederation of Working Journalists, assuming that  it
\nhas  any value, would not be sufficient to convert what\t was
\nan individual dispute into an industrial dispute.
\nOn  the\t view  taken  by us this appeal\t must  fail  and  is
\ndismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
910<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The Bombay Union Of Journalists … vs The, Hindu’, Bombay, And Another on 27 September, 1961 Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 318, 1962 SCR (3) 893 Author: S C. Bench: Shah, J.C. PETITIONER: THE BOMBAY UNION OF JOURNALISTS AND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: THE, HINDU’, BOMBAY, AND ANOTHER DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/09\/1961 BENCH: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-45721","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Bombay Union Of Journalists ... vs The, Hindu', Bombay, And Another on 27 September, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bombay-union-of-journalists-vs-the-hindu-bombay-and-another-on-27-september-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Bombay Union Of Journalists ... vs The, Hindu', Bombay, And Another on 27 September, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bombay-union-of-journalists-vs-the-hindu-bombay-and-another-on-27-september-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1961-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-16T21:34:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-bombay-union-of-journalists-vs-the-hindu-bombay-and-another-on-27-september-1961#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-bombay-union-of-journalists-vs-the-hindu-bombay-and-another-on-27-september-1961\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Bombay Union Of Journalists … vs The, Hindu’, Bombay, And Another on 27 September, 1961\",\"datePublished\":\"1961-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-16T21:34:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-bombay-union-of-journalists-vs-the-hindu-bombay-and-another-on-27-september-1961\"},\"wordCount\":4775,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-bombay-union-of-journalists-vs-the-hindu-bombay-and-another-on-27-september-1961#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-bombay-union-of-journalists-vs-the-hindu-bombay-and-another-on-27-september-1961\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-bombay-union-of-journalists-vs-the-hindu-bombay-and-another-on-27-september-1961\",\"name\":\"The Bombay Union Of Journalists ... vs The, Hindu', Bombay, And Another on 27 September, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1961-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-16T21:34:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-bombay-union-of-journalists-vs-the-hindu-bombay-and-another-on-27-september-1961#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-bombay-union-of-journalists-vs-the-hindu-bombay-and-another-on-27-september-1961\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-bombay-union-of-journalists-vs-the-hindu-bombay-and-another-on-27-september-1961#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Bombay Union Of Journalists … vs The, Hindu’, Bombay, And Another on 27 September, 1961\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Bombay Union Of Journalists ... vs The, Hindu', Bombay, And Another on 27 September, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bombay-union-of-journalists-vs-the-hindu-bombay-and-another-on-27-september-1961","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Bombay Union Of Journalists ... vs The, Hindu', Bombay, And Another on 27 September, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bombay-union-of-journalists-vs-the-hindu-bombay-and-another-on-27-september-1961","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1961-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-16T21:34:47+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bombay-union-of-journalists-vs-the-hindu-bombay-and-another-on-27-september-1961#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bombay-union-of-journalists-vs-the-hindu-bombay-and-another-on-27-september-1961"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Bombay Union Of Journalists … vs The, Hindu’, Bombay, And Another on 27 September, 1961","datePublished":"1961-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-16T21:34:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bombay-union-of-journalists-vs-the-hindu-bombay-and-another-on-27-september-1961"},"wordCount":4775,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bombay-union-of-journalists-vs-the-hindu-bombay-and-another-on-27-september-1961#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bombay-union-of-journalists-vs-the-hindu-bombay-and-another-on-27-september-1961","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bombay-union-of-journalists-vs-the-hindu-bombay-and-another-on-27-september-1961","name":"The Bombay Union Of Journalists ... vs The, Hindu', Bombay, And Another on 27 September, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1961-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-16T21:34:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bombay-union-of-journalists-vs-the-hindu-bombay-and-another-on-27-september-1961#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bombay-union-of-journalists-vs-the-hindu-bombay-and-another-on-27-september-1961"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bombay-union-of-journalists-vs-the-hindu-bombay-and-another-on-27-september-1961#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Bombay Union Of Journalists … vs The, Hindu’, Bombay, And Another on 27 September, 1961"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45721","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=45721"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45721\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=45721"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=45721"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=45721"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}