Most lawyers and bloggers like to discuss
popular topics. The not-so-popularlydiscussed legal cases are the ones that catch my real attention and interest.
One such case is what I am going to discuss here. It is based on the Supreme
Court’s judgment in State of West Bengal
West Bengal
Registration of Copywriters Rules of 1999
Are copywriters actually document writers?
When we talk about copywriters, the
reference is not to those who are in the advertising industry. In the context
of Indian law, we refer to them as document writers. For decades, these
document writers are considered as the extended arms of lawyers. They are
highly trusted and essential to for the Sub-Registrars/Revenue authorities.
While there is no clear process that can pinpoint how these legal ‘experts in
document writing' emerged, the fact is that courts and lawyers depend on their
expertise particularly in cases pertaining to transfer of property, ownership
of property, title deeds and so on. Take a look at any age old
document of any property. You will be able to refer to a detailed narration
of the devolution of ownership. Even the minute details will be recorded by
these document writers.
The West Bengal Registration of Copywriters
Rules of 1982 were replaced by the West Bengal Registration of Copywriters
Rules of 1999. Following this, the copywriters made a grievance before the
Administrative Tribunal that they should be absorbed as Lower Division Clerks
based on two grounds:
Firstly, the State Government had absorbed extra
muharrirs as LDCs and therefore these copywriters should be given the same
treatment. Secondly, they were already doing the same work as was done by LDCs.
Core issue boils down to one serious question of
law: Is there any master-servant relationship between copy writers and the
State Government under which the State Government is obliged to absorb copy
writers as LDCs?
Indian Law: Existence of Master-Servant
Relationship between Copywriters and State Government
The Administrative Tribunal dismissed the
copywriters’ applications; the High Court had a contrary view and held that
there is a master-servant relationship. The High Court also directed that the
State Government should create a separate cadre for copywriters and absorb them
by framing separate rules for them.
Supreme
Court on Copywriters as per West Bengal
Registration of Copywriters Rules of 1982
Following this, the Supreme Court reversed the
High Court judgment.
1. Copywriters are mere
licensees.
2. Copywriters do not do
any government duty. They are merely required to copy deeds which are to be
presented for registration. Making that copy does not amount to doing
government duty.
3. Copywriters are not controlled in their
matters of attendance, working hours, leave, pension and output of work by the
Government.
4. Copywriters are not paid
from government coffers. They are paid by private parties who require those
copies for the registration of their deeds.
5. There is no fiduciary
relationship between the Government and the copywriters.
6. Grant of licence for
copywriting does not amount to creating a service. Therefore, there is no
master-servant relationship between copywriters and government.
There’s an
interesting case is from GB Pant
University of Agriculture & Technology vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2000)
7 SCC 109. Here, the question was
whether the employees of a cafeteria run in the University can be recognized as
regular employees of the said University. It was held that they are employees
of the University.
However, a legal comparison of this case with that of
the copywriters was not encouraged by the Supreme Court.
Master-Servant
Relationship as per Indian Law
In this case, a ruling pertaining to UPSC vs Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela
(2006) 2 SCC 482: 2006 SCC (L&S) 339 was widely discussed as it had laid
down the following four factors pertaining to the contract of service were laid
down: (see SCC page 487, para 6)
“a) the
master’s power of selection of his servant
b) the
master’s responsibility if paymentof wages or other remuneration
c) the
master’s right of suspension or dismisaal
d) the
master’s right to control the method of doing work
A study of
the decision in UPSC vs Girish Jayanti
Lal Vaghela suggests that the rules for appointment were given considerable
importance. The Rules merely provided the manner in which the licensees were to
be created and controlled but there are no rules for appointment of any
service. There is a distinction here that is of legal importance here. That is
one of the key points that the Supreme Court took into consideration while deciding
this matter pertaining to the copywriters.
