Judgment :- 1. The Malayala Rajyam (Private) Ltd., the petitioner herein, challenges Ext. P1 order of the 3rd respondent, Labour Court, Quilon, and Ext. P2 showcause notice issued by the 2nd respondent in respect of the amount payable under Ext. P1 order. 2. The petitioner is a publisher of a daily newspaper called 'Malayala Rajyam'. Until 1952 this business was run by members of one family. In 1952 the business was taken over by a Company called Sree Rama Vilasom Press and Publication (P) Ltd., (for short S. R. V. Press). In 1959 the petitioner-Company was formed for the purpose of taking over from S.R.V. Press the business of newspaper publication. 3. The 1st respondent was employed by S. R. V. Press as a proof-reader. His contention that he was a 'working journalist' as definded under the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) And Miscellaneous Provisions Act (XLV of 1955), (for short the Act), was not accepted by the management. The 1st respondent claimed the benefits available to him as such under the Act. Owing to the refusal of the management of the petitioner-Company to recognise his right under the Act, a dispute arose between the petitioner and the 1st respondent which was referred to the 3rd respondent Labour Court by the Government under S.17(2) of the Act. By Ext. P1 order the Tribunal found that the 1st respondent is a working journalist as defined under the Act. 4. S.2(f) of the Act defines a working journalist as follows: "Working journalist' means a person whose principal avocation is that of a journalist and who is employed as such in, or in relation to, any newspaper establishment, and includes an editor, a leader-writer, news editor, sub-editor, feature writer, copy-taster, reporter, correspondent, cartoonist, news-photographer and proof-reader (italics supplied) 5. Admittedly the 1st respondent is a proof-reader employed by S.R.V. Press. S.R.V. Press is not a newspaper establishment. Again admittedly the 1st respondent in such capacity does his work in relation to the newspapers published by the petitioner. The question is whether the Ist respondent who is an employee of S. R. V. Press and who in such capacity is engaged, for reading the proof of newspapers published by the petitioner can be regarded as a working journalist. 6. The question is whether the Ist respondent who is an employee of S. R. V. Press and who in such capacity is engaged, for reading the proof of newspapers published by the petitioner can be regarded as a working journalist. 6. If the two Companies, although distinct and separate persons under the Companies Act, can be considered to be so connected as to establish that degree of unity of ownership, management and control or functional integrality as is referred to by the Supreme Court in The Associated Cement Cos. Ltd. v. Their Workmen (AIR 1960 S.C. 56) and in other cases, a proof-reader employed by one Company can be considered to be a working journalist, although that Company is not a newspaper establishment, if his work is in relation to the business of newspaper publication carried on by the other Company. For the test of functional integrality: see also 1. Pratap Press v. Delhi Press Workers' Union (AIR 1960S. C. 1213); and 2. Workmen v. Straw Board Mfg. Co. (AIR 1974 S. C. 1132). The question therefore is, are the two Companies so integrated as to be regarded as one unit for the purpose of treating the employees of one Company as carrying on an avocation in relation to the other Company? 7. In Ext. P1 order the Labour Court found that both S. R. V. Press and the petitioner-Company are owned and controlled by the same persons, and the Managing Director of both the Companies is the same person. The employees of one Company carry on the work of the. other Company in many respects. It was found that all the proof-readers of the petitioner are employees of S. R. V. Press. But of the four persons attending to the Rotary Press of the petitioner, three are employees of S, R. V. Press. Again out of the four persons employed in the process studio of the petitioner, three are employees of S. R. V. Press. All despatch work of the petitioner is operated by employees of S. R. V. Press. But of the four persons attending to the Rotary Press of the petitioner, three are employees of S, R. V. Press. Again out of the four persons employed in the process studio of the petitioner, three are employees of S. R. V. Press. All despatch work of the petitioner is operated by employees of S. R. V. Press. On the basis of these facts, the Tribunal found that, although these are two separate entities registered under the Companies Act, there is so much functional integrality and unity of ownership, management and control between them that, within the principle stated by the Supreme Court, a proof-reader like the 1st respondent engaged in relation to the newspapers published by the petitioner can be regarded as a working journalist within the definition of the Act. 8. The question whether the two Companies are functionally integrated is essentially one of fact. The Tribunal has considered the relevant questions and has coma to a finding which cannot be challenged in writ-proceedings, unless it can be said that the order of the Tribunal is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record or is otherwise arbitrary or capricious. In my view the Tribunal has, in the light of the above principles, considered all the relevant questions and come to a finding as regards the status of the 1st respondent. Accordingly the Original Petition is unsustainable. I dismiss the same. The parties are directed to bear their respective costs. Dismissed.