JUDGMENT : M.M. Das, J. - In both the aforementioned writ applications, the Petitioners have challenged the award dated 30.3.1996 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in Industrial Dispute Case" No. 4 of 1986. OJC No. 8943 of 1996 has been filed by the management, being the General Manager, United News of India, New Delhi & OJC No. 8986 of 1997 has been filed by the workman-Shri Pratap Chandra Mohanty. The management has sought for quashing the impugned award as illegal, arbitrary & unjust & the workman has challenged a portion of the award by which the Labour Court directed 50% of back wages to be paid to the workman. The alleged workman was working as a stringer in the United News of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the UN!'), which is a news agency having its head office at New Delhi & Branch Offices all over the country. He was engaged by Bhubaneswar Branch of UNI as a stringer for Puri District with effect from 27.3.2003 & being paid a remuneration of Rs. 40 per month as honorarium, which was subsequently increased to Rs. 75 per month. The case of the UNI is that the alleged workman was disengaged from working as a stringer vide letter dated 25.8.1983. Upon such disengagement, he raised an Industrial Dispute under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'I.D. Act') & after failure of conciliation, the dispute was eventually referred by the State Government to the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar for adjudication. The terms of the reference are as follows: Whether the termination of services of Sri Pratap Chandra Mohanty, Markandeswar Sahi, Puri by the General Manager, United News of India, 9-Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001 from the post of stringer with effect from 15.9.1983 is legal and/or justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled? 2. The Labour Court after hearing the dispute, by its award dated 31.1.1987 held that the Opp, Party No. 3 (alleged workman) in OJC No. 8943 of 1996, who is the Petitioner in OJC No. 8986 of 1997, is not a "working journalist" within the meaning of Working Journalist Act & as such, he was not a workman under the definition of 'workman' given in Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act. 3. The above award was challenged by the said workman before this Court in OJC No. 1899 of 1987. 3. The above award was challenged by the said workman before this Court in OJC No. 1899 of 1987. This Court by Judgment dated 8.8.1991, reported in 1991 (II) OLR 226 , disposed of the said writ application by setting aside the award & remitting the matter back to the Labour Court for fresh disposal in the light of the observation made in the said Judgment, granting liberty to the parties to lead evidence on the question of maintainability as well as on merits. This Court while extensively dealing with the issue involved in the case in the aforesaid Judgment observed as follows: 16. Shri Mohanty has something to say on this aspect of the matter also. According to him, the Petitioner could not be regarded as a 'workman' within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act inasmuch as there is nothing to show if Opp. Party No. 1 was exercising any control & supervision over the work of the Petitioner. It is submitted that the relationship of employer & employee would not exist between the parties unless one be in a position to control & supervise the work of the other. For the disposal of this case, we would agree with Shri Mohanty that for the relationship of an employer & his employee to come into existence, it should be shown that the employer was in a position to control & supervise the work of the employee. This is the view expressed in Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of Saurashtra which was cited with approval in Chintaman Rao and Another Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh. It may, however, be pointed out that there is no rigid test to determine the question of 'control & supervision'. The answer in every case would ultimately turn on its own circumstances. 17. In the case at hand, there is no application of mind by the Labour Court to the aforesaid aspect of the matter though it has been observed in the impugned award that the management never exercised any control over the work of the Petitioner. This is, however, half-hearted observation. 17. In the case at hand, there is no application of mind by the Labour Court to the aforesaid aspect of the matter though it has been observed in the impugned award that the management never exercised any control over the work of the Petitioner. This is, however, half-hearted observation. Having come to the conclusion that the Petitioner being not a working journalist, it was not available to him to contend that he was a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court did not really apply its full mind to the question as to whether the Petitioner would not be a 'workman' as defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act because of lack of control & supervision exercised by Opp. Party No. I. It is urged by Shri Mohanty, by referring to Newspapers Ltd. v. State of U.P. 1980 FLR 348 , that if there would be no control over a correspondent, he cannot be called an employee. Though this is so, but every case would depend on its own facts. In the case at hand, there is very scanty treatment of this subject. The entire matter has been disposed of in two sentences. Parties were not called upon to substantiate their cases on this aspect. We would, therefore, desire a proper adjudication of this point. 4. In support of the contention raised in OJC No. 8943 of 1996, Mr. J.K. Tripathy, Learned senior Counsel appearing for the UNI strenuously urged that this Court while dealing with the matter in extenso having observed "the benefits of a statute as important as the Industrial Disputes Act to other categories of newspaper employees, if otherwise they be workmen within the meaning of the Act" & having further observed "for the disposal of this case, we would agree with Shri Mohanty that for the relationship of an employer & his employee to come into existence, it should be shown that the employer was in a position to control & supervise the work of the employee, which is the view expressed in Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of Saurashtra which was cited with approval in Chintaman Rao and Another Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, ". The Labour Court has acted contrary to the directions issued by this Court in the aforementioned Judgment & has passed the impugned award without keeping the observations made by this Court in view. State of Saurashtra which was cited with approval in Chintaman Rao and Another Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, ". The Labour Court has acted contrary to the directions issued by this Court in the aforementioned Judgment & has passed the impugned award without keeping the observations made by this Court in view. Mr. Tripathy further submitted that after the matter was remitted back to the Labour Court, both the parties have led their evidence on the question as to whether the Opp, Party No. 3 in the writ application filed by the management, is a workman & also on the maintainability & merit of the case. In the impugned award, the Labour Court framed the following issues: i) Whether there is relationship of the employer & employee between the first-party management & the second-party workman? ii) Whether the reference is maintainable? iii) Whether the second-party is a workman? iv) Whether there was termination of service? It is alleged that the Labour Court did not act as per the specific directions made by this Court in the previous Judgment, the relevant portion of which is quoted above. 5. Mr. Mishra, Learned Counsel appearing for the workman, who is the Petitioner in OJC No. 8986 of 1997, on the contrary, contended that the Labour Court on analyzing the materials available on record has rightly come to the conclusion that the Petitioner-Pratap Chandra Mohanty is a workman & his termination of service is illegal being not inconformity with the provisions of the I.D. Act. He further contended that the UNI has made an attempt to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by seeking re- appreciation of the materials as an Appellate forum, which is impermissible under law. 6. Considering the contentions raised by the respective parties, it is felt necessary to peruse the impugned award in order to find out as to whether the same suffers from perversity & is unsustainable on the face of it. On perusal of the impugned award, it appears that the Labour Court has presumed that the honorarium which was paid to Shri Pratap Chandra Mohanty, to be a salary. On perusal of the impugned award, it appears that the Labour Court has presumed that the honorarium which was paid to Shri Pratap Chandra Mohanty, to be a salary. Discussing the deposition of the management witness No. 1, who has categorically stated that the UNI was not supervising the work of the alleged workman & it had no control over his work, the Labour Court without any basis came to the finding that there can be no conclusion that the employer had no control & supervision at all on the second party or on his activities regarding performance of his duty to exclude him as a working journalist. The Labour Court has, thereafter, proceeded in the award to decide the question as to whether the said Pratap Chandra Mohanty comes under the definition of 'workman' even presuming that he is not a working Journalist. 7. Considering the nature of the work, which was being performed by Shri Mohanty, the Labour Court arrived at a finding that he has completed one year period of continuance service though it found that Shri Mohanty was not a whole time worker without analyzing the facts to find out as to whether the alleged workman Shri Mohanty comes under the definition of "Workman" as given in the Act, the Labour Court has jumped to the following conclusion "from the oral & documentary evidence of both the sides, there can be no conclusion that the second party cannot be an workman under the Industrial Disputes Act". No where in the award, the Labour Court has followed the directions of this Court given in the previous Judgment, while considering the materials available on record to come to a definite finding on the issue of existence of a master & servant relationship between the UNI & Shri Mohanty. When this Court in the previous Judgment relying upon the decision in the case of the The Management of Express Newspapers Ltd. Vs. When this Court in the previous Judgment relying upon the decision in the case of the The Management of Express Newspapers Ltd. Vs. B. Somayajulu and Others observed that the categories of persons mentioned in the inclusive part of the definition only remove the doubt as to whether the persons specified in the said clause are journalists or not, but then, to claim the status of 'working journalists', they will have to further show that journalism is their principal avocation & found that unless the principal avocation of a person is journalism, he cannot be considered to be a 'Working Journalist', the Labour Court should have kept the above observation in view while deciding the dispute. 8. In view of such conclusion of this Court, it was not open for the Labour Court to again enter into the said issue & examine as to whether the alleged workman comes under the definition of "Working Journalists". 9. From the statements of the witnesses, it is brought to the notice of this Court that nothing was produced before the Labour Court to show that there was relationship of employer & employee between the UNI & Shri Mohanty.The alleged workman has categorically admitted in his statement that he was not required to give attendance in the office of the UNI & there was no scope for him to take leave. He has also not stated that there was any supervision of his work by the UNI. He has further stated that he was working as correspondent for the "Daily Prajatantra" at Rs. 250 per month. The above aspect of the statement of the alleged workman has not at all been taken into consideration the impugned award, which clearly shows that there was no relationship of employer & employee between the UNI & Shri Mohanty. 10. It is a settled position of law that a workman must be "employed" as such, so as to establish a master & servant relationship which could warrant a reunion in the event of disruption by the intervention of the Labour Court. (See Management of Puri Urban Cooperative Bank Vs. Madhusudan Sahu and Another, ). 10. It is a settled position of law that a workman must be "employed" as such, so as to establish a master & servant relationship which could warrant a reunion in the event of disruption by the intervention of the Labour Court. (See Management of Puri Urban Cooperative Bank Vs. Madhusudan Sahu and Another, ). In the instant case, there was absolutely no material before the Labour Court to show that there was relationship of employer & employee between the UNI & Shri Mohanty, & thus the abrupt conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court that Shri Mohanty comes under the definition of "Workman" cannot be accepted. 11. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned award cannot be sustained. The impugned awarded dated 30.3.1996 is accordingly quashed. As a consequence, OJC No. 8943 of 1996 stands allowed & OJC No. 8986 of 1997 stands dismissed. No cost.