Judgment :- Ramachandra Ayyar, C.J. There are appeals under Cl. 15 of the Letters Patent agaisnt the judgment of Veeraswami, J., in a batch of writ petitions filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution by the management of the "Hindu" for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the orders passed by the labour court, Madras, under S. 9 (2) of the Working Journalists (Fixation of Rates of Wages) Act XXIX of 1958 directing the payment of certain sums by the management to respondent 3 in the several appeals. The latter are being employed as copyholders in the press. The management have prescribed a grades system of wages to them. Their work is associated with the correction of proofs in the prepartion of the daily newspaper run by it. In preparing the daily, the matter taken up for publication, whether it be in the form of manuscript or typed script, goes through four stages of proof correction before it is finally incorporation in the final publication. The first or what is called the rough proof is checked up by the manuscript or typed script by two sets of persons acting together, namely, the proofreaders and the copyholders. The latter reads out the matter given for printing, while the proofreader follows the same with the printed proof in his hands. The proofreader, who is a acquainted with the symbols employed in proof correction, makes the corrections wherever necessary both with a view to bring it in conformity with the original and also to correct mistakes in printing. This dual agency for the correction of first proof, we are told, is employed only in a few newspapers among whom the "Hindu" is one. That undoubtedly facilities quicker despatch of work. The rough proof thus corrected goes to the press again for a second proof called the author's final. After the correction of that proof the third proof known as final galley emerges from the press. That again is corrected and the fourth proof called the page proof comes for the final correction. Except at the state of the rough proof in the correction of which the copyholder does only the reading part of the comparison and correction in all the subsequent stages of the work the duties pertaining to correction of proof are given to the copyholder as well as the proofreader indiscriminately. Except at the state of the rough proof in the correction of which the copyholder does only the reading part of the comparison and correction in all the subsequent stages of the work the duties pertaining to correction of proof are given to the copyholder as well as the proofreader indiscriminately. In other words, printed proofs at the stage of the author's final galley and page proofs are distributed for correction not merely to proofreaders but to copyholders as well.The respondents in these several appeals occupying the specified category as copyholders on the staff, claiming that they were proofreaders within the class of persons so designated, in the recommendations of the Wage Committee appointed under the Working Journalists (Fixation of Rates of Wages) Act, 1958, and as such entitled to receive emoluments, applied to the State Government for recovery of arrears of salary due to them on that basis (after giving credit to the actual amounts received by them from the management.) The Government in due course referred the applications for adjudication to the labour court at Madras. The management contested the applications stating that the copyholders could never be regarded as proofreaders. This objection has been overruled by the labour court which computed the amounts due to the employees on the basis that they were proofreaders and directed the management to pay the same to the respective persons.A certificate under S.9(1) of the 1956 Act by the State Government followed. The validity of the order of the labour court and of the certificate was challenged in this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution before Veeraswami, J. The learned Judge has upheld the decision of the labour court and hence these appeals. The only question that arises for determination in these appeals is, whether the respondents fall within the category of proofreaders for whom scales of pay and grades have been fixed by the Wage Committee appointed under the Working Journalists Act, 1958. The contention for the management is that as there is no specific provision in the recommendations for a copyholder, he could not be entitled to the benefit thereunder. The contention for the management is that as there is no specific provision in the recommendations for a copyholder, he could not be entitled to the benefit thereunder. Ordinarily, where an employee under a contract of employment is designated as holding a particular post, it will not be open to him to claim that the duties performed by him pertain to some other category and that he should, therefore, be regarded as holding that post to which such duties are appropriate, and not the one to which his employer appointed him. But this rule cannot apply in all its rigour where a comprehensive system of wages for the workers in an establishment has been evolved by an industrial award and the like, or as in this case by a statutory authority. In such a case it will be the duty of the employer and or any other authority concerned with the matter to determine under which category of wagestructure a particular employee falls and determine his wages or salary accordingly. Where an award or statutory report, etc., does not in terms provide a wage-formula in respect of a particular category, it must not be automatically presumed that they have omitted to provide for the case; regard should then be had to the principal as constrasted with the casual, occasional or incidental duties performed by the employee, and his salary determined on that basis. Indeed this rule has been accepted by the Wage Committee itself for interpretation of its recommendations to individual cases. Paragraph 25 of Chap. III of the recommendations states : "The principal duties performed by an employee should determine the category of such employee; neither designation nor casual or occasional work should be taken into account for such categoritation." * But before we refer to the actual recommendations of the committee, we have to digress a little into the historical background of the recommendations and to one decision of this Court. In the year 1955 the Central Legislature passed the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955; that will be referred to hereafter as the Act of 1955. That Act came into force on 20 December, 1955. The Wage Board, constituted under that enactment in the following year, fixed scales of pay for the working journalists. In the year 1955 the Central Legislature passed the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955; that will be referred to hereafter as the Act of 1955. That Act came into force on 20 December, 1955. The Wage Board, constituted under that enactment in the following year, fixed scales of pay for the working journalists. The validity of the decision of the board was impugned by the managements of certain newspapers before the Supreme Court by applications under Art. 32 of the Constitution. By the judgment of the Court dated 19 March, 1958, the proceedings of the Wage Board (the decision therein having been found to have been arrived at without consideration of the capacity of the employers to pay salaries) were quashed. In so doing the Supreme Court laid down the principles which should generally guide the statutory authority entrusted with the matter of fixation of salaries of the working journalists. The judgment is in Express Newspapers v. Union of India. Soon, thereafter, an Ordinance called as Working Journalists (Fixation of Rates of Wages) Ordinance was issued with a view of enable the fixation of wages of working journalists in accord with the principles laid down in the above case by the Supreme Court. This Ordinance was duly replaced by an enactment bearing substantially the same short title (XXIX of 1958) to which we have made reference earlier. Even under the Ordinance a Wage Committee had been appointed for the purposes envisaged. That committee continued to function under the enactment that followed the Ordinance. The Wage Committee in due course made its recommendations. They were in the main accepted by the Central Government and by virtue of the powers vested in the Government under S.6 of the 1958 Act an order in terms of the recommendations as accepted was passed. That order came into force on 1 June, 1958. The order made obligatory upon the managements of newspapers to pay wages to the several categories of their employees in accordance with the recommendations thus accepted. Confinding ourselves to the daily newspapers for the moment, the committee classified them into six divisions in accordance with the gross income that the particular newspaper earned. We may incidentally mention that the "Hindu" occupying as it does a pre-eminent position amongst the newspapers of this country has been placed in the A class. Confinding ourselves to the daily newspapers for the moment, the committee classified them into six divisions in accordance with the gross income that the particular newspaper earned. We may incidentally mention that the "Hindu" occupying as it does a pre-eminent position amongst the newspapers of this country has been placed in the A class. The working journalists were also categorized in the recommendations into groups, they being roughly divided into four groups. Wages, scales and grades with respect to each group appropriate to the particular class of newspaper, were specified in the report. Proofreaders, for example, come under group IV in A class newspapers. They were fixed in the grade of Rs. 125-300 per month, the increase being by annual increments. The schedule to the Wage Committee recommendations giving functional definitions has stated with reference to group IV : "Proofreader is a person who checks up printed matter or 'proof' with editor copy to ensure strict conformity of the former with the latter. Factual discrepancies, slips of selling, mistakes of grammar and syntax may also be discovered by him and he either corrects or gets them corrected." * It must, however, he remembered that fixation of wages by the committee is confirmed to working journalists as defined in the 1955 Act. We have already referred to the fact that in the definition of that term under the enactment working journalist is deemed to include a proofreader. Copyholders as such are not expressly mentioned in S.2(f) of that Act but having regard to the functional definition adopted by the Wage Committee they would be entitled to the same salary as proofreaders only if they show that their duties are such that they come within the terms of the definition of "working journalists." It is clear from the report of the Wage Committee that it was for this reason that they have not separately provided for the wages for the copyholders as such. In other words, the committee's recommendations would apply to copyholders only if it is made out that the work done by the copyholders satisfies the requirements of the work of "proofreaders" within the meaning of that term given in the schedule to the committee's recommendations. It is the employees' case that they come within the terms of "proofreader" in group IV of the recommendations. It is the employees' case that they come within the terms of "proofreader" in group IV of the recommendations. This claim is contested by the management on two grounds : (1) their functions are essentially different from those of proofreaders, for all that the former have to do is to read the manuscript alone; they are not even qualified for being proofreaders as they are not conversant with the symbols employed in the correction of proof, and(2) the deciding factors in the matter of categorization is the main duty performed by the copyholders, and as reading of the original which should be regarded as their main duty cannot amount to checking of the printed matter, the essential duty of a proofreader not being such he cannot be regarded as a proofreader. The fact that correction of proof from the second to the fourth stage is given to them, it is contended, is only incidental and that it cannot be decisive of the true nature of their role. The labour court rejected these contentions of the management on the ground that it had already been decided by this Court in the "Hindu" and another v. Their workers (Madras Union of Journalists) 1957 (2) LLJ 275], that copyholders in this particular establishment were proofreaders. Put in that form, the view of the labour court might be open to criticism, as indeed it was to criticized by the learned counsel for the appellant, that, that decision was concerned only with the question whether a copyholder was a working journalist or not, that cannot be extended to a case where the matter to be determined is whether copyholders are entitled to claim salaries fixed for the proofreaders. The decision in the "Hindu" and another v. Their workers (Madras Union of Journalists) 1957 (2) LLJ 275] (vide supra), related to an industrial dispute which arose before the enactment of the Working Journalists (Fixation of Wages) Act, 1958. As we stated, the 1955 Act defined the "working journalist" as including proofreader. The proofreaders in the "Hindu" claimed that they were entitled to the same privileges as any other working journalist, i.e., for six hours day work. As we stated, the 1955 Act defined the "working journalist" as including proofreader. The proofreaders in the "Hindu" claimed that they were entitled to the same privileges as any other working journalist, i.e., for six hours day work. The management declined to extent to them that benefit on the ground that although the definition of the term "working journalist" in the Act purported to include them, the object and scope of the enactment did not envisage such persons getting benefits thereunder. This resulted in an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the industrial tribunal at Madras. Both the tribunal and Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., in proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution that followed the decision of the tribunal held that proofreaders in the "Hindu" were entitled to all the benefits under the 1955 Act as they were working journalists within the express terms of the definition contained in the Act. The learned Judge further observed : "It is true that some evidence was adduced in this case to the effect that the 'copyholders' had less educational attainments and were less competent than 'proofreaders' and that they were not required to be acquainted with the symbols usually employed in the printing business in proof correction. But I am unable to hold that because of this reason they formed a different class altogether from proofreaders in the 'Hindu' establishment. It would be seen that they corrected three out of four proofs from the 'author final' stage along with the regular proof-examiners. Whatever might be the position in those cases where their duties were as copyholders exclusively, viz., reading from the original for comparison with the print in proof in the case on hand, they were in the 'Hindu' employed substantially as proofexaminers." * The question then is whether the duties performed by the copyholders would entitle them to be classed as proofreaders for the purpose of interpreting the recommendations of the Wage Committee. The decision of Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., in the case mentioned above was before the committee when it considered the matter. In para 102 of its report the committee has stated : "In the Madras case already referred to copyholders in the 'Hindu' were held to be proofreaders because at certain stages they examined proofs. The decision of Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., in the case mentioned above was before the committee when it considered the matter. In para 102 of its report the committee has stated : "In the Madras case already referred to copyholders in the 'Hindu' were held to be proofreaders because at certain stages they examined proofs. Copyholders as such are not expressly mentioned in the definition in S.2(f) of the Act and they would be entitled to wages of a working journalist only if they show that they come within the terms of the definition of working journalists." * Turning to the definition of "proofreader" as given in the schedule to the report which we have extracted above, we find that his duties are to ensure strict conformity of the printed matter with the editor copy and part of his functions will be to correct slips of spelling, mistakes of grammar and syntax. It would be sufficient even if he were to get them corrected. From what we have said above, it will be clear that the work done by the copyholders in the "Hindu" are the same as that of proofreaders from the second to the fourth stage of proof correction. Those stages undoubtedly involve correction of discrepancies, slips of spelling, mistakes, etc. Even in regard to first stage it cannot be said that their functions are essentially different from those specified in the definition. The work of correction of the first proof to accord with the original matter, can be done by one person; but that will involve comparatively a longer time and greater difficulty than when it is done by a dual agency. The "Hindu" has therefore introduced this dual system with a view to ensure quicker despatch of business and greater accuracy in the process of comparision. In such a case, one can reasonably say that both the proofreader and the copyholder together perform a single act, namely, that of correction of proofs, the duties of both being an integrated act. Both of them in a sense can be called proofreaders in regard to the first stage of proof correction within the meaning of the term of the definition. As pointed out by Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., the fact that one among them has lesser educational or other qualifications is wholly irrelevant when considering the nature of the work done by him. Both of them in a sense can be called proofreaders in regard to the first stage of proof correction within the meaning of the term of the definition. As pointed out by Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., the fact that one among them has lesser educational or other qualifications is wholly irrelevant when considering the nature of the work done by him. We are, therefore, in entire agreement with the view taken by Veeraswami, J., that the copyholders in the "Hindu" establishment are proofreaders who will come under group IV of the scheme of wages prescribed under the recommendations of the Wage Committee appointed under the Working Journalists (Fixation of Rates of Wages) Act, 1958. The appeals fail and are dismissed with costs, one set, to be distributed equally.