JUDGMENT : Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J. The challenge, in the present writ petition, is to the order dated 24.10.2013 (Annexure P5), whereby the respondent-The Tribune Trust discontinued the arrangement of Stringer (Part-time Journalist) with the petitioner and to the subsequent award dated 31.1.2014 (Annexure P11) whereby the Labour Court, Rohtak declined the reference against the petitioner on the ground that he was already working in the Model School at Rohtak as a Teacher and thus, he was not appointed as such on regular basis. Perusal of the paper-book would go on to show that the claim of the petitioner was that he was initially appointed as a Stringer on contract basis on 30.9.1996 (Annexure P1) to supply-news with special emphasis on education and university from Rohtak. His remuneration was increased from Rs. 500 to Rs. 2,000 vide letter dated 13.3.1999 (Annexure P3) and thereafter to Rs. 5,000 w.e.f. 1.11.2000. His services were terminated w.e.f. 10.11.2003 vide letter dated 24.10.2003 (Annexure P5) and it was alleged that there was violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (In short "the Act") as the work was of regular nature and is still carrying on. Accordingly, the plea taken was that there was violation of the mandatory provisions of Sections 25F, 25G, 25H, 25T & 25U of the Act and unfair labour practice was being practiced. Reference was also made to the appointments made thereafter for two persons. 2. The defence of the Tribune Trust was that he was not a workman and, therefore, the provisions of the Act were not applicable. The workman has been appointed as a Stringer to collect news on part-time basis vide letter dated 30.9.1996, since he was already a regular employee of a Model School at Rohtak. He was free to undertake any other employment by way of service or self-employment since the contract with the Tribune Trust was for part time working only and there was no relationship of workman and the Management inter se as he had been rendering his services while working as a Teacher in the Model School at Rohtak and was not a workman. 3. Replication was filed by the petitioner controverting the allegations and reiterating the stand earlier taken to submit that even the Stringers are very much covered under the definition of workman. 4. 3. Replication was filed by the petitioner controverting the allegations and reiterating the stand earlier taken to submit that even the Stringers are very much covered under the definition of workman. 4. The Labour Court, taking into account the statement of the workman and W.W. 2 Anup Singh Saini along with the statement of M.W. 1 Sunil Mittal, Deputy Manager, came to a conclusion that since the workman had been working in a Model School at Rohtak as a Teacher and was still working there and that only a contractual appointment was with the respondent-Management on a part-time basis, he could not be entitled for any relief. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even part time employment is covered under Section 2(f) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (In short "1955 Act") and, therefore, the Labour Court was in error in denying the relief. The argument is very attractive at first blush but perusal of said section would go on to show that the working journalist is a person whose principal avocation is that of journalist. Section 2(f) of the above said Act reads as under:-- (f) "working journalist" means a person whose principal avocation 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 newspaper establishment and includes an editor, a leader, writer, news-editor, sub-editor, feature-writer, copy-tester, reporter, correspondent, cartoonist, news-photographer and proof-reader, but does not include any such person who-- "(i) is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or (ii) being employed in a supervisory capacity, performs, either by the nature of the duties attached to his office or by reason of the powers vested in him, function mainly of a managerial nature." 6. In the present case, as noticed above, it was a specific case of the Trust that the petitioner is working as a regular Teacher in a Model School at Rohtak and has no principal avocation as a Journalist but rather as a teacher and he was only a part time employee of the respondent-Management to collect news to the Tribune Trust and the said fact has not been denied but the only stand is that part-time journalist is also covered. In such circumstances, he cannot be entitled to be a workman as defined under the 1955 Act, since Section 3 provides that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 shall subject to modifications will apply to the working journalists. Reference can be made to three Judges' Bench of the Apex Court in The Management of Express Newspapers Ltd. Vs. B. Somayajulu and Others, AIR 1964 SC 279 , wherein the issue of principal avocation of journalism was discussed. It was held where there was full-time employment and principal avocation was of journalism, the Court would have jurisdiction as such. The relevant observations read as under:-- "11. The position, therefore, is that the Labour Court was in error making a finding that the respondent was not a working journalist on the ground that he was a part time employee, whereas the High Court is in error in holding that the respondent is an employee because he has not to satisfy the test that journalism is his principal avocation. As we have held, the respondent can be said to be a working journalist only if he satisfies the two tests prescribed by the first part of section 2(b). The test that he should have been employed as a journalist would undoubtedly be satisfied because it is common ground that since 1935 he has been working as a correspondent of the appellant at Guntur and the payment which the appellant made to him by whatever name it was called was also regulated by an agreement between the parties; in its pleadings, the appellant has, however, disputed the fact that the respondent was exclusively employed by it and so, that is one question which still remains to be tried. The further question which has to be considered is whether the respondent satisfies the other test: "was his working as a correspondent his principal avocation at the relevant time"? The definition requires that the respondent must show that he was a working journalist at the time when his services were terminated; and that can be decided only on the evidence adduced by the parties. Unfortunately, though the Labour Court has made certain observations on this point, it has not considered all the evidence and has made no definite finding in that behalf. That was because it held that as a part time employee, the respondent was outside Section 2(b). Unfortunately, though the Labour Court has made certain observations on this point, it has not considered all the evidence and has made no definite finding in that behalf. That was because it held that as a part time employee, the respondent was outside Section 2(b). The High Court has no doubt purported to make a finding even on this ground in the alternative, but, in our opinion, the High Court should not have adopted this course in dealing with a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227. Even in dealing with this question, the High Court appears to have been impressed by the fact that in discharging his work as a correspondent the respondent must have devoted a large part of his time; and it took the view that the test that journalism should be the principal avocation of the journalist implied a test as to how much time is spent in doing the work in question? The time spent by a journalist in discharging his duties as such may no doubt be relevant, but it cannot be decisive. What would be relevant, material and decisive is the gain made by the part-time journalist by pursuing the profession of journalism as compared to the gain made by him by pursuing other vocations or professions. In dealing with this aspect of the matter, it may no doubt be relevant to bear in mind the fact that some months before his services as a correspondent were terminated, the respondent's selling agency had come to an end, and so, the Labour Court may have to hold an enquiry into the question as to whether the respondent proves that the work of correspondent was his principal avocation at the relevant time in the light of the relevant facts. The onus to prove this issue as well as the issue as to whether he was in the exclusive employment of the appellant lies on the respondent, because his claim that he is a working journalist on these grounds is disputed by the appellant, and it is only if he establishes the fact that he is a working journalist that the question as to determining the relief to which he is entitled may arise. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the order passed by the High Court and remand the case to the Labour Court with a direction that it should deal with the dispute between the parties in accordance with law in the light of this judgment. There would be no order as to costs. 12. Before we part with this appeal, however, we would incidentally like to refer to the fact that the test of the principal avocation prescribed by Section 2(b) has presumably been adopted by the legislature from the recommendations made by the Press Commission in its report. In paragraph 505, dealing with the question of working journalists, the Commission observed that it thought that "only those whose professed avocation and the principal means of livelihood is journalism should be regarded as working journalists," and it added that "we have deliberately included the words "professed avocation" because we have come across cases where persons belonging to some other professions, such as law, medicine, education, have devoted part of their time to the supply of news to and writing articles for, newspapers. It may be that in the case of some of them, particularly during the earlier years of their professional career, income from the practice of their own profession. But it would not, on that account, be correct to classify them as working journalists, so long as their professed avocation is other than journalism." It would be noticed that the expression "professed avocation" has not been adopted by the legislature instead, it has used the words "principal avocation". That is why we are inclined to take the view that the time taken by a person in pursuing two different professions may not be decisive; what would be decisive is the income derived by him from the different professions respectively. It does appear that the legislature was inclined to take the view that if a person following the profession of law in the early years of his career received more money from journalistic work and satisfied the other tests prescribed by Section 2(b), he may not be excluded from the definition merely because he is following another profession. To that extent, the provision of Section 2(b) departs from a part of the recommendation made by the Press Commission." 7. To that extent, the provision of Section 2(b) departs from a part of the recommendation made by the Press Commission." 7. Thus, this factor of the principal avocation was only dispelled by the respondent and nothing has been shown to the contrary as to whether the petitioner was not working as a regular teacher and was only engaged in the profession of journalism as his principal avocation. Accordingly, in the existing circumstances, no fault can be found in the well reasoned Award of the Labour Court and thus, the present writ petition is dismissed.