JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. — The petitioner-workman challenges the Award dated 19th August, 1993 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jeypore in I.D. Case No.44/92. The petitioner as¬serts that he was appointed as a Correspondent in the establis¬hment of Eastern Media Limited, Bhubaneswar in August, 1986. He was receiving a salary of Rs.400.00 per month and besides that he was enjoying other emoluments and was also permitted to avail scooter loan. But then without any rhyme or reason he was re¬trenched from his service by the management with effect from 1.12.1999. Being aggrieved by such illegal action he raised a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. After conciliation failed, the State Government in exercise of its power conferred under it under Sections 10 and 12 of the Act, referred the fol¬lowing dispute to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court Jeypore for adjudication :- “Whether the retrenchment of Shri Dillip Chawda, Correspon¬dent with effect from 1.12.91 by the Management of Eastern Media Ltd., Bhubaneswar is legal and/or justified ? If not, to what relief is Sri Chawda entitled ?” 2. The opposite party-management filed its written statement taking the stand that the petitioner was never employed as a Correspondent. He was only working as a Stinger in his spare time and for his work of dispatch of news to “Sambad”, an Oriya daily, he was being paid a consolidated amount towards con¬veyance, postal/telegraphic/telephone charges, etc. He was not paid any salary. It was further asserted that journalism was a hobby of the petitioner and he was never in the pay-roll of the management. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court framed five issues. The parties led evidence, both oral and documentary, to substantiate their respective cases. After analyzing the entire evidence, the Labour Court arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner was not an employee under the management. Thus there was no question of termination of service of the petitioner. It further held that there was no reason for reference of the dispute for adjudication under the I.D. Act. It was observed that the management denied that it had retrenched the petitioner from service at any time and according to the management the petitioner was still continuing as a Correspon¬dent. On the basis of such conclusion the reference was answered in negative. 4. Mr. It was observed that the management denied that it had retrenched the petitioner from service at any time and according to the management the petitioner was still continuing as a Correspon¬dent. On the basis of such conclusion the reference was answered in negative. 4. Mr. Patra, learned counsel for the petitioner, force¬fully submitted that the Labour Court has not properly appreciat¬ed the facts and circumstances of the case and has proceeded on the basis of surmises and conjecture, and not on the basis of the materials available on record. According to him, the award su¬ffers from the vice of non-consideration of the materials availa¬ble on record including evidence. 5. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the opposite party-manage¬ment, at the other hand strongly repudiated the submissions made by Mr. Patra. According to Mr. Das, the Labour Court has taken the entire facts and circumstances into consideration and the conclusions arrived at are just, proper and in consonance with the evidence, both oral and documentary. According to him, the petitioner was never a regular employee. He was having his own business at Bhanjanagar in the name and style of “Sangita News Agency”. He was selling newspapers and magazines at Bhanjanagar which was his principal avocation. He was a journalist only by hobby and was working as a Stinger under the opposite party-management. He was never appointed and therefore there was no question of his retrenchment. It is reiterated that the petition¬er is still continuing as a Correspondent under the opposite party-management and the reference was not maintainable. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. I have also meticulously gone through the materials available on record. Sec. 2(f) of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 defines “Working Journal¬ist” as under :- “Working Journalist” means, a person whose principal avoca¬tion 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 newspa¬per establishments...” The definition quoted above reveals that a Journalist can be nomenclatured as a “Working Journalist” where it appears that journalism is his principal avocation. In other words, whenever an employee working in a newspaper establishment claims the status of a Journalist, he has to first establish that he is a Journalist and then journalism is his principal avocation and that he has been employed as such Journalist. In other words, whenever an employee working in a newspaper establishment claims the status of a Journalist, he has to first establish that he is a Journalist and then journalism is his principal avocation and that he has been employed as such Journalist. The onus to prove these facts lay on the petitioner who claimed that he was em¬ployed as a Working Journalist which is disputed by the manage¬ment. If the petitioner succeeds in establishing that he was a Working Journalist, the question of determining the relief the petitioner is entitled to may arise for consideration. 7. On perusal of records, it appears that Annexure-1 was exhibited as Ext.D in the I.D. Case. It was a public Notification issued by the Editor of Sambad. By the said Notification, public in general were intimated that the petitioner was appointed as a Correspondent of Sambad for Bhanjanagar in place of one Tapan Kumar Sinha. It is further stated in Ext.D that the petitioner might be contacted in connection with any matter concerning the opposite party-management. Annexure-2 was exhibited as Ext. E in the I.D. Case and this document was an Identity Card issued in favour of the petitioner by the management. Annexure-3, is a note of appreciation by the Editor of Sambad with regard to the re¬ports received from the petitioner. Annexure-4 was a letter issued by the News Editor of the opposite party-management to the District Collector, Ganjam intimating him that the petitioner had been appointed as a Correspondent of Sambad and requesting him to extend all cooperation to the petitioner. The said document has been exhibited as Ext.F. Annexure-5 is a letter issued by the Collector, Ganjam to the District Public Relation Officer on the subject “Appointment of fresh Correspondent. It is clearly stated that the petitioner had been appointed as a Correspondent of Sambad for Bhanjanagar Subdivision. Annexure-6 is a letter of the Sub-divisional Officer, Ghumsur (I & P.R. Section) dated 21.4.1987 enclosing a list of names of Correspondents in which the petitioner’s name found place as “Non-accredited Correspon¬dent for Sambad”. Ext.7 was an invoice issued by a firm, namely, Mercury Motors- with regard to petitioner having acquired a scooter through Salary Scheme. Annexure-8 was a letter issued by the management dealing with complaint of the petitioner with regard to non-payment/late payment of his salary, etc. The laid letter had been exhibited as Ext.A in the I.D. Case. Ext.7 was an invoice issued by a firm, namely, Mercury Motors- with regard to petitioner having acquired a scooter through Salary Scheme. Annexure-8 was a letter issued by the management dealing with complaint of the petitioner with regard to non-payment/late payment of his salary, etc. The laid letter had been exhibited as Ext.A in the I.D. Case. Annexure-9 was a letter issued by one Sanjib Mohanty, an employee under the management to the petitioner requesting him to come to him and finalise the scooter account as well as arrear salary. The same was exhibited as Ext.6 in the I.D. Case. The deposition of wit¬nesses also throws some light with regard to appointment/engagement of the petitioner under the opposite party-management. 8. A perusal of the impugned Award, however, reveals that the Labour Court except considering Ext. 1 has not taken the documents referred to above into consideration. The records also reveal that a number of other documents were exhibited by the parties, but then the Labour Court has not referred to the same. As has been discussed above, the crux of the issue which needs determination in this case is as to whether the petitioner at any time had been engaged or appointed by the opposite party-management as a Correspondent and whether he was a Working Jour¬nalist. For arriving at such conclusion it was incumbent upon the Labour Court to consider all the materials produced by the parties, some of which have been referred in the preceding para¬graph. The impugned award reveals that the Labour Court has not taken all the materials exhibited in the case into consideration. Thus the impugned award suffers from the vice of non-considera¬tion of the materials available on record. I have, therefore, no hesitation to quash the impugned award and remand the matter to the Labour Court for de novo disposal of the I.D. Case on the basis of the materials available on record, and I direct accord¬ingly. The Labouar Court, in order to facilitate efficacious adjudication, if necessary, may permit the parties to adduce further evidence, oral or documentary, and as the litigation is pending long since, the same shall be disposed of as expeditious¬ly as possible. The Writ application is thus disposed of. Application disposed of.