JUDGMENT : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. 1. Judgment delivered by learned Single Judge on 08.06.2009 dismissing Writ Petition No. 3853/2000 filed by the present appellant/Newspaper Establishment only, has been questioned in this appeal. 2. The Writ Petition arises out of an award dated 24.12.1999, delivered by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur in Reference I.T. No. 5/1983. 3. The demand which was made by respondent No. 2 - Trade Union and which formed subject matter of the reference reads as under : "SCHEDULE This Working Committee of Nav Bharat Shramik Sangh, Nagpur, in its meeting held on Saturday, the 1st January, 1983 unanimously demands that the "Nav Bharat", Nagpur be reclassified as a Newspaper establishment falling in Class-II as the average gross revenue of the said newspaper establishment of the immediately proceeding accounting years is Rs. 2 Crores and above and less than Rs. 4 Crores, as provided in the Palekar Award." 4. Shri Salunke, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Newspaper Establishment has after narrating previous history pointed out that the employer has every right to reorganize and rationalize its business/establishment. Partnership concern, managing Newspaper by name "Nav Bharat" till then, was dissolved on 31.12.1982 w.e.f. 01.01.1983 and 4 separate Partnership Firms were formed. Nav Bharat at Nagpur came to partnership formed by name "Navbharat (Nagpur)". Nav Bharat, being published from Raipur, went to the Firm "Navbharat (Raipur)". Similarly, Newspaper establishment at Jabalpur, Indore and Bhopal went to "Navbharat (Jabalpur)", "Navbharat (Indore)" and "Navbharat (Bhopal)". He points out that in proceedings filed before the Industrial Court, effort of respondent No. 1 was to club all these distinct establishments together, and the establishment at Raipur, Jabalpur or Bhopal were not party respondent. 5. During arguments, he also produced before the Court registration details of each newspapers with a view to demonstrate separate registration numbers thereof. He fairly stated that these details and certificates are not part of record and were not produced before the Industrial Court or before the learned Single Judge. 6. Because the same are produced, without prejudice and objection of Shri Thakur, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, only to keep the records correct we mention them as "Produce 1 to Produce 5". It is obvious that documents cannot be looked into by this Court at this stage. 7. 6. Because the same are produced, without prejudice and objection of Shri Thakur, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, only to keep the records correct we mention them as "Produce 1 to Produce 5". It is obvious that documents cannot be looked into by this Court at this stage. 7. Shri Salunke, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant however, submits that the grievance in relation to right of employer to organize and rationalize his business and absence of statutory need to issue notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 there for, is again overlooked by the Industrial Court, as also by the learned Single Judge. He submits that Schedule appended to Working Journalists Act has been brought into force for the first time on 28.08.1989 and, hence, reliance upon it is erroneous. 8. With the assistance of learned counsel, we have perused both the judgments. 9. Shri S.D. Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 at the threshold pointed out that Palekar Award of which respondent No. 2 Trade Union sought benefit has come into force on 15.10.1979. Relevant years for which benefit was sought were 1980, 1981 and 1982. Gross average revenue of newspaper establishment as on 31.12.1982 had already exceeded Rs. 2 Crores, and therefore, it needed to be placed in Clause 2 of the Palekar Award. Thus, dispute raised pertains to period prior to coming into force of dissolution of partnership and hence, alleged reorganization or rationalization has no bearing on the present controversy. He has also invited our attention to Clause 10 (b) of the Dissolution Deed to urge that terms and conditions of service applicable to workmen - members of respondent No. 2 were not to be adversely affected and to continue as they were on 31.12.1982. He submits that thus, only effort in reference is to point out service conditions prevailing as on 31.12.1982. He adds that in such a situation, subsequent division of one newspaper establishment into 4 or 5 different establishment w.e.f. 01.01.1983 has got no relevance. 10. Lastly he points out that though schedule to Working Journalists Act may have come into force on 28.08.1989, the amendment enables any employee to point out the position prevailing and hence, advantage thereof enures to the benefit of respondent No. 2. 10. Lastly he points out that though schedule to Working Journalists Act may have come into force on 28.08.1989, the amendment enables any employee to point out the position prevailing and hence, advantage thereof enures to the benefit of respondent No. 2. He therefore, submits that there is no jurisdictional error or perversity and judgment of learned Single Judge needs to be maintained. 11. Perusal of the Working Journalists Act, 1958 shows that it defines Newspaper Establishment in Section 2[d] to mean - an establishment under control of any person or a body of persons who are incorporated or not. Facts above show an undisputed position that as on 31.12.1982, the newspaper establishment alleged to be separated from 01.01.1983, were under common control and ownership. 12. The Schedule appended to the Act and forming part of Section 2[d], has come into force on 28.08.1989. As per the first clause therein, two or more newspaper establishments under common control are deemed to be one newspaper establishment. Under sub-clause [3], two or more newspaper establishments to publishing newspaper bearing the same or similar title and in same language in any place in India, or bearing the same or similar title but, in different languages in the same city or union territory, are to be deemed to be one newspaper establishment. 13. Facts pointed out by Shri Salunke, learned counsel for petitioner show that newspaper Navbharat is being published in Hindi, simultaneously from Nagpur, Raipur, Jabalpur, Bhopal and Indore. Earlier it was having only one name i.e. Navbharat. After division, a word signifying city from which it is being published has been added to its title. This therefore, shows that as on 31.12.1982, there was one owner and even thereafter i.e. even in 1989, when this position was prevailing, all 5 establishments needed to be clubbed together and taken as one newspaper establishment. The discussion shows that such a plea was/is available to respondent No. 2 even after coming into force of Schedule on 28.08.1989. As such, there is no question of retrospective operation of the amendment. 14. Here, terms and conditions in dissolution of partnership are mentioned by the learned Single Judge as also by the learned Member of Industrial Court. Clauses 10 and 10(b) therein read as under : "10. As such, there is no question of retrospective operation of the amendment. 14. Here, terms and conditions in dissolution of partnership are mentioned by the learned Single Judge as also by the learned Member of Industrial Court. Clauses 10 and 10(b) therein read as under : "10. As regards the workmen employed by the dissolved firm of Nav Bharat Press, it is agreed that the workmen attached to be various business which are vested in the parties hereto by virtue of this deed of dissolution shall continue to be employed by them in their respective business subject to the following conditions : (a) .... (b) The terms and conditions of service applicable to workmen shall not be in any way less favourable than those applicable to them before 31.12.1982, and. (c)..." 15. Clause 10(b) unequivocally demonstrates that inspite of dissolution, terms and conditions of service applicable to workmen cannot be in any way altered to their prejudice and cannot be less favourable than those applicable to them before 31.12.1982. 16. The gross revenue of the newspaper establishment on 31.12.1982 is admittedly above Rs. 2 Crores. There is no challenge to finding of fact reached by the Industrial Court and accepted by the learned Single Judge. As per Chapter II of Palekar Award which has come into force on 15.10.1979, this establishment therefore is falling in Clause 2, which covers slab of Rs. 2 Crores and above, but, less than Rs. 4 Crores. This placement in Clause 2 w.e.f. 01.01.1983, is therefore automatic. Facts applicable before division of common ownership into four partnerships show that on 31.12.1982, the service conditions flowing from the placement in Clause 2 were available and are attracted and govern members of respondent No. 2 Trade Union. 17. The appellant has accepted to extend those service conditions because of clause 10[b] supra. Hence, the contention that units/partnerships at other 4 places ought to have been joined as party respondent to the Reference Proceedings is erroneous and misconceived. 18. We therefore, do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity. No case is made out warranting interference in Letters Patent Appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.