Judgment K.L. MANJUNATH, J. 1. Though the matter is listed for Preliminary Hearing, by consent of the parties, the Appeals are heard on merits and taken up together for final hearing. 2. Heard Sri K. Kasturi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Sri Pradeep Sawkar, learned Counsel appearing for the First Respondent. 3. The facts leading to the filing of these Appeals are as under: The Appellant-Union is representing the Employees of the First Respondent, who are working as ‘Scanner Operators’. Based on the Wage Board Report, under the provisions of the Working journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity), the Union of India issued a Notification under Section 12(1) of the aforesaid Act with certain modification. 4. The State of Karnataka based on the dispute raised by the Appellant-Union referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal vide Annexure ‘E’ to the Writ Petition dated 19.10.2002 raising a dispute whether the twelve persons, who are working as ‘Scanner Operators’ are entitled for the promotion to the post of ‘Working Journalists’. 5. When the matter was pending before the Labour Court, the Management filed a Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 43062/2003 challenging the portion of the Notification issued by the Central Government vide Annexure ‘B’ dated 5.12.2000 as unconstitutional and ultra vires and to further declare the Order of Reference dated 19.10.2002 Annexure ‘E’ which is the subject matter of I.D. No. 235/2002 as illegal and also set aside the Order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, in I.D. No. 235/2002 dated 19.5.2003 vide Annexure ‘L’ to the Writ Petition. 6. The learned Single Judge after considering the arguments advanced by both the parties came to the conclusion that the Notification issued by the Union of India under Section 12(1) of the Act, is ultra vires, as the same has been passed without giving an opportunity to the Management and further held that the Union of India has no powers to change the cadre. Consequently, Annexure ‘B’ to the Writ Petition came to be quashed as ultra vires in regard to portion of the Notification. Consequently, the proceedings pending before the Industrial Tribunal is declared as null and void. Therefore, the present Appeal is filed. 7. Consequently, Annexure ‘B’ to the Writ Petition came to be quashed as ultra vires in regard to portion of the Notification. Consequently, the proceedings pending before the Industrial Tribunal is declared as null and void. Therefore, the present Appeal is filed. 7. Sri K. Kasturi, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in allowing the Writ Petition in toto without questioning the facts involved in this matter. According to him, even if the learned Single Judge is of the opinion that portion of the Notification issued under Section 12(1) of the Act, by the Central Government is ultra vires. He could not have quashed the proceedings pending before the Industrial Tribunal without appreciating the facts of the case. 8. According to him, the reference sent by the State Government is whether the twelve ‘Scanner Operators’ are entitled for promotion to the post of ‘Working Journalists’ and such a reference is within the discretionary powers of the State Government and it is for the Industrial Tribunal to consider whether the point for reference has to be answered either in favour of the Union or in favour of the Management, after considering the case of both the parties. According to him, even if the portion of the Notification issued under Section 12(1) of the Act by the Central Government is bad in law, it is for the Central Government to take action in accordance with law by following the procedure if it can take. Therefore, he requests the Court to set aside the Order of the learned Single Judge and allow the Appeal. 9. Per contra, Sri Pradeep Sawkar, learned Counsel appearing for the First Respondent submits that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in allowing the Writ Petition. According to him, the Central Government has no powers to change the cadre of ‘Scanner Operators’ to ‘Working Journalists’, as the same is beyond the scope of Wage Board either under Section 8 or 9 of the Act and power of the Government for modification is also limited. Further, he contends that when the change of cadre from ‘Scanner Operators’ to ‘Working Journalists’ was not permissible, the reference sent by the State Government is also impermissible. Therefore, he requests the Court to dismiss the Appeals. 10. Further, he contends that when the change of cadre from ‘Scanner Operators’ to ‘Working Journalists’ was not permissible, the reference sent by the State Government is also impermissible. Therefore, he requests the Court to dismiss the Appeals. 10. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we have to consider the following points in these Appeals: 1. Whether the learned Single Judge has committed an error in allowing the Writ Petition in toto? 2. Whether quashing of the reference sent by the State Government and also quashing the portion of the Notification issued under Section 12(1), is ultra vires? 11. It is not in dispute that the 12 Employees, who are represented by the Appellant-Union have been working as ‘Scanner Operators’ under the First Respondent. According to them, the Wage Board has the power to revise their wages and refix the wages. Taking us through the definition of Section 2(f) of the Act, reads as under: “(f) “working journalist” means a person whose principal avocation is that of a journalist and Subs. By Act. 36 of 1981, Section 2 (w.e.f. 13.8.1980) [who is employed as such, either whole time or part-time, in or in relation to, one or more newspaper establishments], 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, functions mainly of a managerial nature;” 12. The ‘Working Journalists’ includes news-photographer and proof reader, and the duties of the scanner is also similar to the working of photographer and proof reader. Therefore, such Employees are to be considered as ‘Working Journalists’. 13. Based on the provisions of Section 2(f) of the Act, it is the domain of the State Government to send a reference to the Industrial Dispute whether ‘Scanner Operators’ are entitled for promotion to the post of ‘Working Journalists’. In the circumstances, he requests the Court to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. 14. 13. Based on the provisions of Section 2(f) of the Act, it is the domain of the State Government to send a reference to the Industrial Dispute whether ‘Scanner Operators’ are entitled for promotion to the post of ‘Working Journalists’. In the circumstances, he requests the Court to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. 14. We need not consider in regard to the definition of the term ‘Working Journalists’ because the reference sent by the State Government is within the domain of the Industrial Tribunal to give a finding whether these persons are entitled for promotion to the post of ‘Working Journalists’. Whether when such a dispute is raised by the Employees of the First Respondent stating that they are entitled to the post of Working Journalists and they are entitled for the same wages payable to other working journalists, it is in the domain of the State Government to justify in recording the reference sent to the Industrial Tribunal and it is for the Industrial Tribunal to consider whether they are entitled for promotion or not, based on the contentions urged by both the parties. 15. The learned Single Judge without answering this question has allowed the Writ Petition in toto on the ground that the Notification issued by the Central Government under Section 12(1) of the Act is without hearing the Management and the same is unconstitutional and it is beyond the scope of the Act. 16. Therefore, we are of the view that an error is committed by the learned Single Judge in not considering the effect of sending the reference by the Government to the Industrial Tribunal and whether the Reference sent by the Industrial Tribunal has to be answered either in favour of the Management or for the Union. It is within the domain of the Industrial Tribunal and the same shall be considered by the Industrial Tribunal on merits and in accordance with law. Since this point is not considered, we allow these Appeals in part. The Order of the learned Single Judge is modified. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal to answer the points for reference on merits and in accordance with law by providing opportunity to both the parties. 17. Accordingly, these Appeals are allowed in part.