Safeguarding Journalistic Welfare: The Working Journalists Act of 1955

In the early years of independent India, journalists worked under deeply uncertain conditions. There were no guaranteed wages, no limits on working hours, and no formal protections against arbitrary dismissal. Newsrooms ran on the dedication of their staff, but that dedication was often exploited. It took a landmark piece of legislation – the Working Journalists Act of 1955 – to begin changing this reality. This Act was India’s first serious attempt to treat journalism not just as a noble calling, but as a profession deserving of labour rights and legal protections.

The backdrop: why was the Act needed? 🔗

After independence, India’s press was growing rapidly, but the people producing the news were among the most poorly compensated professionals in the country. Journalists worked long, irregular hours with minimal pay, no job security, and almost no recourse if they were fired without notice. The First Press Commission, appointed in 1952 under Justice G.S. Rajadhyaksha, was tasked with examining the state of the press in India. After two years of extensive inquiry, the Commission submitted its report on July 14, 1954. Among its many recommendations, it specifically called for improving the working conditions of journalists and establishing a Wage Board to address their low wages. The Commission’s findings painted a grim picture of exploitation, where reporters, editors, and correspondents were treated as dispensable labour rather than skilled professionals.

The Working Journalists Act was a direct outcome of these findings. Parliament passed the Act on December 20, 1955, making it applicable across the whole of India. Its full title – the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 – reflects the broad scope of the legislation, covering not just reporters but the entire workforce within newspaper establishments.

Key definitions under the Act 🔗

One of the first things the Act does is clearly define who it covers. Understanding these definitions is essential because they determine who gets the protections and who does not.

Who is a “working journalist”? 🔗

A working journalist is someone whose primary occupation is journalism and who is employed – full-time or part-time – in one or more newspaper establishments. This includes editors, leader writers, news editors, sub-editors, feature writers, reporters, correspondents, cartoonists, news photographers, and proof-readers. However, it explicitly excludes those employed in managerial or administrative roles, or those in supervisory positions performing mainly managerial functions.

What counts as a “newspaper establishment”? 🔗

A newspaper establishment is defined as any entity – whether run by an individual or a corporate body – involved in the production or publication of one or more newspapers, or in running a news agency or syndicate. A newspaper itself is any printed periodical containing public news or commentary on public news. Newspaper employees include working journalists and all other persons employed in or connected to a newspaper establishment. The Act also identifies non-journalist newspaper employees – people who work in newspaper establishments but are not journalists and do not hold managerial or administrative positions.

Core provisions: what the Act guarantees 🔗

The heart of the Working Journalists Act lies in its provisions on working hours, leave, wages, gratuity, and retrenchment. These provisions were groundbreaking at the time and remain relevant today.

Working hours and rest 🔗

The Act sets a clear ceiling on working hours. No working journalist can be required or allowed to work for more than 144 hours during any period of four consecutive weeks, excluding meal times. Additionally, every journalist must get at least 24 consecutive hours of rest in every seven-day period. For a profession known for unpredictable schedules and late-night deadlines, this was a significant safeguard against overwork.

Leave entitlements 🔗

Beyond regular holidays and casual leave, working journalists are entitled to earned leave with full wages – not less than one-eleventh of the period spent on duty. They are also entitled to medical leave at half their wage rate for not less than one-eighteenth of their service period. These provisions ensure that journalists are not penalised for falling ill or needing rest after sustained periods of work.

Gratuity 🔗

The Act requires newspaper establishments to pay gratuity to every working journalist who has been in continuous service for at least three years, whether they retire or are terminated. The gratuity amount is equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay for every completed year of service (or any part exceeding six months). In the case of a journalist’s death during service, the gratuity goes to their nominee.

Protection against retrenchment 🔗

One of the most important protections in the Act relates to job security. The provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, apply to working journalists as they do to other industrial workers, but with enhanced notice periods. For editors, the retrenchment notice period is six months; for all other working journalists, it is three months. Moreover, no employer can dismiss, discharge, or retrench a newspaper employee simply because doing so would reduce their wage liability.

The Wage Board mechanism 🔗

Perhaps the most distinctive feature of the Act is its provision for constituting Wage Boards to fix and revise wages for both working journalists and non-journalist newspaper employees. This was one of the key recommendations of the First Press Commission, and the Act gave it legal force.

Each Wage Board consists of representatives of employers, employee representatives, and independent members, one of whom – a current or former judge of a High Court or the Supreme Court – serves as the Chairman. The Board considers factors like cost of living, prevailing wages for comparable employment, and the financial health of the newspaper industry across different regions before making its recommendations to the Central Government.

Since 1955, six Wage Boards have been constituted for working journalists and four for non-journalist newspaper employees. The most recent and significant of these was the Majithia Wage Board, constituted in 2007 under the chairmanship of Justice G.R. Majithia. It submitted its recommendations in December 2010, proposing revised pay scales across different categories of newspaper establishments classified by gross revenue.

The Majithia Wage Board and its impact 🔗

The Majithia Wage Board’s recommendations were accepted by the Government of India in October 2011 and notified on November 11, 2011. Among the key proposals were a variable pay component of 35 percent for employees in the top four categories of newspapers and 20 percent for others, full neutralisation of cost-of-living increases in dearness allowance, and night shift, hardship, transport, and house rent allowances.

However, implementing these recommendations proved contentious. Several major newspaper publishers, including the publishers of The Times of India and Anandabazar Patrika, challenged the Act’s constitutional validity and the Wage Board’s recommendations before the Supreme Court, arguing they infringed on fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. In a landmark judgment on February 7, 2014, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Act and the Majithia Wage Board, directing newspapers to implement the revised wages from April 1, 2014.

Other linked protections 🔗

The Act also extends certain existing labour laws to newspaper establishments. The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 applies to every newspaper establishment employing 20 or more persons, treating it as an industrial establishment. Similarly, the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 applies to newspaper establishments with 20 or more employees, ensuring access to social security benefits. In addition, journalists earning up to Rs. 21,000 per month and employed in establishments covered under the ESI Act, 1948 can avail of its health and insurance benefits.

The Act also includes a recovery mechanism for unpaid dues. If an employer fails to pay what is owed, the employee (or their family, in case of death) can apply to the state government, which can then recover the amount in the same manner as it collects arrears of land revenue.

Enforcement and penalties 🔗

The Act provides for the appointment of Inspectors by the state government to ensure compliance. These Inspectors have the power to enter premises, examine records, and require the production of documents. Any employer who contravenes the Act’s provisions faces a fine, and repeat offenders face higher penalties. If the offender is a company, every person in charge of and responsible for the company’s business at the time of the offence is also held liable.

Challenges in implementation 🔗

Despite its comprehensive framework, the Working Journalists Act has faced persistent challenges in real-world implementation.

Non-compliance by employers 🔗

Many newspaper establishments, especially smaller and regional ones, have consistently failed to implement Wage Board recommendations. The primary responsibility for enforcement lies with state governments, and the level of compliance varies significantly across states. A Central Level Monitoring Committee was set up under the Ministry of Labour and Employment to oversee implementation, with regional meetings held across the country. Yet, enforcement has remained patchy.

The digital media gap 🔗

The Act was drafted for the print newspaper industry. Its definitions revolve around “printed periodical work” and “newspaper establishments.” This means that journalists working in digital-only media outlets, news websites, and online platforms often fall outside the Act’s scope. As the media industry has shifted dramatically towards digital platforms, a growing section of the journalistic workforce finds itself without the protections that the Act was designed to provide.

The freelancer problem 🔗

The rise of the gig economy has created another blind spot. Freelance journalists, independent content creators, and stringers – who form a significant and growing portion of India’s media workforce – are typically not considered “employees” under the Act. The International Federation of Journalists has highlighted that a majority of media gig workers, freelancers, and independent journalists lack legal protections for fair pay, health insurance, or safe working conditions. Without a formal employer-employee relationship, these professionals cannot claim the benefits of regulated working hours, earned leave, or gratuity.

Contractualisation and disguised employment 🔗

Even within traditional newspaper establishments, there has been a growing trend of hiring journalists on short-term contracts or through third-party arrangements that technically place them outside the Act’s coverage. This “contractualisation” allows employers to avoid the financial obligations imposed by the Act while still benefiting from journalistic labour.

The Act’s significance in Indian media history 🔗

Despite these challenges, the Working Journalists Act remains a landmark piece of legislation for several reasons.

First, it was among the earliest laws in the world specifically designed to protect the labour rights of journalists. It recognised that journalism, while a profession serving the public interest, also involves labour – and that labour deserves fair compensation and safe working conditions.

Second, the Wage Board mechanism introduced by the Act created a structured, consultative process for determining wages that balanced the interests of employees, employers, and the public. While compliance has been uneven, the very existence of the mechanism has set benchmarks that journalists’ unions have used as a basis for negotiations.

Third, the Act laid the foundation for professionalising journalism in India. By defining who counts as a journalist, establishing conditions of service, and linking newspaper employment to broader industrial and social security legislation, it contributed to a framework that treated journalism as a structured profession rather than a loose vocation.

Looking forward: does the Act need reform? 🔗

The media landscape of 2026 looks nothing like the one the Act was written for in 1955. News is now consumed primarily through smartphones, delivered by digital platforms, and produced by a mix of salaried staff, freelancers, and independent creators. The Act’s framework, rooted in the print newspaper industry, urgently needs updating.

There have been calls from journalists’ unions and media advocacy groups to expand the Act’s definitions to include digital media workers, to create protections for freelancers and platform-based journalists, and to strengthen enforcement mechanisms. The broader consolidation of labour laws under the Code on Wages, 2019 and other new labour codes also raises questions about how the Working Journalists Act will interact with these frameworks going forward.

At the same time, the core principles of the Act – fair wages, reasonable working hours, job security, and social security – are more relevant than ever. The challenge is not to discard these principles but to extend them to cover the full range of people who now practise journalism in India.

What do you think? Should the Working Journalists Act be expanded to cover digital media journalists and freelancers, or does India need an entirely new legislation for the modern media workforce? And given the persistent non-compliance with Wage Board recommendations, what enforcement mechanisms would actually work?

References

1. https://indianmediastudies.com/press-commission-of-india/
2. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/1504/
3. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/38015889/
4. https://ruralindiaonline.org/en/library/resource/the-working-journalists-and-other-newspaper-employees-act/
5. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/104235611/
6. https://labour.gov.in/sites/default/files/Wage%20Board%20for%20Working%20Journalists.pdf
7. https://samsn.ifj.org/ifj-hails-indian-supreme-court-decision-on-majithia-wage-board-recommendations/
8. https://www.pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1705414
9. https://samsn.ifj.org/SAPFR24-25/media-gig-economy/