The Management of Daily Pratap Vs.
Them Katibs  INSC 129 (1 May 1972)
CITATION: 1972 AIR 1872 1973 SCR (1) 438 1972
SCC (2) 342
Working Journalists (Conditions of service)
and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 45 of 1955 s. 2(f)-Katibs of Urdu newspaper
whether Working Journalists.
The Wage Board constituted by the Central
Government in 1963 under s. 9 of the Working Journalists (,Condition of
service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 45 of 1955 defined
"calligraphist" asan "artist who performs. journalistic work
and. also calligraphs matters." Artist", according tar the Wage Board
"is a person who prepares for publication ,drawing, layouts, maps graphs
or other similar embellishment, illustrations of any kind or r-realive art.
He may do some or all of these functions'
" Calligraphists were included among working journalists by the Wage
-The respondents who were Katibs in the
employment of the appellant claimed' that they were "calligraphists"
and therefore working journalists and as such entitled to the wages recommended
by the Wage Board. The industrial dispute in, this connection was decided by
the Labour Court in favour of the respondents. The decision of the Labour Court was challenged by the appellant in this Court under Art. 136 of the
Constitution. It was urged on behalf of the appellant inter alia that the
respondents did not satisfy the definition of 'Working Journalist' in s. 2(f)
of the Act under which two conditions must be satisfied namely, (1) He must be
a person whose principal avocation is that of a journalist; and (2) He must be
employed as such, or in relation to any establishment as specified in the
HELD : (i) To come within the definition of
"Calligraphist" three conditions have to be satisfied by the
employer; (1) He must be an Artist; (2) He should perform journalistic work;
(3) He should also calligraph matters. [444 E] The evidence established, and
the appellant had conceded before the Labour Court, that Katibs calligraph
matter. The evidence also established that Katibs prepare for publication
drawing, layouts and other similar embellishments. The Labour Court's finding
that the Respondents were artists as defined by the Wage Board was correct. [445
D--E] The Katibs according to the evidence, make corrections in the drafts
furnished to them by the Editor. They even sometimes substitute words, compress
and enlarge the matters according to, the availability of space and sometimes
They also correct mistakes in the matter sent
to them. All this clearly went to establish that in the course of their duties
the respondents performed journalistic work.. [448 D] Thus Katibs are Artists
who perform journalistic work. and who also calligraph matters. Accordingly
they satisfy the definition of 'calligraphist' as per the Wage Board
Recommendations and they are 'working .journalists under s.
2(f) of the Act. Therefore the Labour Court
was right in holding that they were entitled to the higher scale of wages recommended
by the Wage Board for calligraphist and accepted by the Central Government.
[449 A-B] 439 (ii) The contention of the appellant that the respondents did,
not satisfy the definition of working journalist in s. 2(f) could not be
accepted. When once the Wage Board has given the definition of a Calligraphist
and included persons coming under that category in the definition of a working
journalist' the, only test to be applied will be whether the person concerned
satisfied the requirements of the definition given by the Wage Board. Under the
conditions on which special leave wasgranted in the present case it was no
longer open to the appellant to question the jurisdiction of the Wage Board
when it included calligraphists in the definition of 'working journalist'. [446
G] Further, in the case of the Management of Express Newspaper Ltd. v. B.
Soinayajulu and others, this Court while dealing with a provision substantially
similar to s. 2(f) clearly defined avocation as one's calling or profession. it
has been further laid down therein that when a journalist is in full time
employment, there is no difficulty in holding what his principal avocation is.
Again dealing with the requirement of being employed as such', which also
accured in s. 2(f), it is laid down that the requirement of employment is
necessary to create a relationship of employer and employee between the
journalist and the newspaper establishment. It is laid down that the definition
will he satisfied if the journalist is in exclusive employ of a newspaper
establishment, in which case his principal avocation will be that of a
journalist and he can be considered to be employed as such. In the present case
there was no controversy that the katibs were full time employees and there was
the relationship of master and servant. The tests laid down in this case were
therefore also satisfied. [447 CF] The Management of Express Newspapers Ltd. V.
B. Soinayajulu and others,  3 S.C.,R. 100 applied.
Newspapers (Private) Ltd, and another v. The
Union of India and others,  S.C.R. 12 referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :Civil Appeal
No. 1309 of 1971.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Award dated
the 5th June, 1971 of the Labour Court, Delhi in L.C.I.D. No. 19 of 1968.
V. S. Desai and Naunit Lal, for the
M. K. Ramamurthi, J. Mamamurthi and Romesh
Pathak, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered byVaidialingam,
J.-.This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the Award, dated June 5,
1971 of the Labour Court, Delhi. in. L.C.I.D. No. 19 of 1968 holding that the
Katibs are calligraphists as defined in the Wage Board Recommendations and that
they are entitled to the rates of wages prescribed by the Central Government
Notification dated October 27, 1967.
In the petition for special leave the
appellant had raised three main contentions : (1) The Wage Board exceeded its
jurisdiction in including Calligraphists in the definition of Working
Journalists 440 and hence its recommendation is of no effect; and in consequence
the Government Notification accepting the said recommendation is also void; (2)
The Katibs are. not Working Journalists as defined in s. 2(f) of the Working
Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (Act
45 of 1955) as amended (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act); and (3) The
finding of the Labour Court that the Katibs are Calligraphists as defined in
the Wage Board Recommendations is erroneous. But this Court on September 8,
1971 granted special leave in respect of all questions raised in the special
leave petition except the question as to whether the calligraphists were
properly recommended to, be working journalists by the Wage Board.
Therefore, it will be seen that the appellant
is not entitled to raise the first question in this appeal that the Wage Board
exceeded 'its jurisdiction in including calligraphists in the definition of
It further follows that the Notification of
the Central Government accepting the recommendations of the Wage Board cannot
also be challenged.
The appellant is publishing
"Pratap" a daily newspaper from Delhi in Urdu language. Unlike
English and Hindi, Urdu papers ,Are printed with the help of Katibs and not
with the assistance of compositers. Under s. 9 of the Act, the Central
Government constituted a Wage Board by notification dated November 12, 1963 for
the purpose of fixing of revising the rates of wages in respect of working
journalists in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
The Wage Board made its recommendations. In
Schedule 1, section 1 relating to newspapers, the Wage Board had enumerated
various personnel. In group 3, the Sub-Editor, Reporter, Correspondent,
Newsphotographer, Artist, Calligraphist, Librarian or Index Assistant are
referred to and their functions given. We will have to refer later to the
definition of the two expressions "Artist" and
"Calligraphist". In paragraph 4.27of the Report the Wage Board had
recommended that the working journalists of different groups employed in
different classes of newspapers and news agencies should be paid basis pay per
mensem in accordance with the scales given therein. The newspapers were,
divided into various classes and there is no controversy that the appellant
belongs to class V. The, pay scale for the type of employees enumerated in
group 3 and referred to earlier, working in a newspaper coming under class V
was fixed in the scale of Rs.
175-15-250-30-400-35-575. The Central
Government by and large, accepted the recommendation of ,the Wage Board subject
to certain minor modifications.. Accordingly the Central Government under s. 12
of the Act issued a notificatiori No. 80-3883 dated October 27, 1967 directing
that the recommendations of the Wage Board accepted by the Central Government
have to be implemented from the dates mentioned therein.
441 The Katibs in the employ of the appellant
claimed that they ,,ire calligraphists as defined by the Wage Board in its
recommendations and accepted by the Central Government and as such they are
"working journalists" under the Act. They claimed that they should
receive the Wages according to the scale as recommended by the Wage Board. The
appellant was not agreeable to accede to this demand on the ground that the
Katibs are not Calligraphists and in consequence they are not working
journalists and as such they are not entitled to the higher emoluments provided
in the Wage Board Recommendations. Finally, the parties agreed on April 30,
1968 that the dispute whether the Katibs are working journalists or not, under
the definition of Calligraphists as prescribed by the Wage Board will be
jointly referred by the parties under s. 10(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
On a joint application by both parties, the
Lt. Governor, Delhi, by his order dated September 23, 1968, referred to the
Labour Court, Delhi for adjudication the following dispute :
"Whether the Katibs are Working
Journalists under the definition of "Calli raphists" as prescribed by
the Wage Board and whether they are entitled to rates of wages as prescribed
for "Calligraphists" under Government Notification No. 80-3883 dated
the 27th October, 1967 and if so, what directions are necessary in this
respect?" Before the Labour Court, the Katibs relied on the Wage Board
Recommendations and claimed that they were Calligraphists, who had been
included as Working Journalists. Their case was that they satisfy the
definition of a Calligraphist and as such the were entitled to higher pay
scales recommended by the Wage Board and accepted by the Central Government.
This claim was contested by the appellant on
the ground that the Katibs were not Calligraphists as their work was only to
write in a neat hand whatever was supplied to them by the SubEditors. The
nature of the duties of a Katib and a Calligraphist was radically different and
the former were not covered by the Wage Board Recommendations and the Central
'Government The Labour Court has recorded the following findings The Katibs
working in the establishment of the appellant calligraph matters. The counsel
for the appellant herein conceded that the Katibs were calligraphing the
matters but nevertheless they were not calligraphists as defined by the Wage
Board. The evidence, both oral and documentary, establishes that the Katibs
prepare the lay out headings, shading and beautification etc. and they 442 are
artists as defined by the Wage Board. The Katibs make correcting in the drafts
furnished to them by the Editor and substitute their own words and either
compress or enlarge the matter, according to availability of space-, The
corrections and substitutions made by the Katibs as disclosed by the evidence
show that the corrections and substitutions were of such a substantial nature
that they could be made only by a person who knew the language, the facts and
had a grasp of the current affairs. The Kattbs therefore do journalistic work.
The Katibs satisfied the requirements of the definition of
"Calligraphist" contained in the Wage Board Recommendations. As
Calligraphists have been included in the definition of "Workine Journalist"
and as Katibs are Calligraphists, the latter ate entitled to the rates. of
Wages prescribed in the Wage Board Recommendations.
Mr. V. S. Desai, learned counsel for the
appellant has strenuously attacked the reasoning of the Labour Court that the
Katibs are Calligraphists and as such entitled to, the higher rates of pay. The
counsel urged that in no sense can the Katib be considered to be an artist; nor
can he be considered to perform journalistic work. In order to come within the
definition of working journalist under the Act, the principal avocation of the
person concerned must be that of a journalist and he must have been employed as
such in any newspaper establishment. This aspect, according to the learned
counsel, has not at all been considered by the Labour Court. The work of the
Katibs was merely to write in neat hand whatever is supplied to them by the
editorial staff. The Katibs do not satisfy the definition of
"Calligraphist" under the Wage Board Recommendations.
On the other hand, Mr. M. K. Ramamurthi,
learned counsel for the respondent, pointed out that when the Katibs, like, the
respondents, are admittedly in the exclusive employ of the appellant, thequestion
of their principal avocation does not arise. 'That question will arise only
when employment in a newspaper establishment is not exclusive. The expression
"employed as such" in S. 2 (f ) of the Act is not to be understood as
"employed as journalist". But it only denotes the relationship of and
servant which admittedly exists in the present case. The expression
"journalistic work" or "journalist" has not been defined
either in the Act or in the Wage Board Recommendations and it has, to be
understood in a technical sense having, regard to the historical backgound of
the newspaper industry. The activity of being journalist will' include being on
the editorial staff of a newspaper as opposed to the press workers and
managerial staff. The counsel further pointed out that the expression
"Calhigraphist" ,has been defined in the Wage Board Recommendations
and on an appreciation of the evidence, the Labour Court has recorded 443
findings on the material on record that the Katibs discharge various items of
work to qualify them to come under the definition. Hence the counsel urged that
the Award of the Labour Court holding that Katibs are Calligraphists and as
such "working journalist" is proper.
It is now necessary to refer to the relevant
provisions of the Act. Section 2(f) defines"working journalist" as
follows :"(2) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires :
(f) "working journalist" means a
person whose principal avocation is that of a journalist and who is employed as
such in, or in relation to, any newspaper establishment, and includes an
editor, a leader-writer, news editor, subeditor, feature-writer, copy-testeT,
reporter, correspondent, cartoonist, news-photographer and proofreader, 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 of a managerial nature;"
Chapter II deals with the working journalist. Section 8 gives power to the
Central Government to fix or revise from time to time the rates of wages in
respect of working journalists. Section 9 deals with the procedure for such
fixation or revision of rates of wages. It contemplates the constitution by the
Central Government of a Wage Board for the said purpose, consisting of the
persons mentioned in the section. Sections 10 and 11 deal with the procedure to
be adopted by the Board as well as the latter making recommendations to the
Central Government. Section 12 gives power to the Central Government to enforce
the recommendations of the Board either with or without modification.
Section 13 provides that on the coming into
operation of an order issued by the Central Government under s. 12, every
working journalist will be entitled to be paid by his employer wages at the
rate which is to be in no case less than the rate of wages specified in the
It was under s. 9 that the Central Government
constituted the Wage Board on November 12, 1963. It was under s. 12 that -LI
286SupCI/72 444 the Central Government issued Notification dated October 10,
1967 substantially accepting the recommendations of the Wage Board and
directing that the recommendations so accepted are to come into force with
effect from the date referred to therein.
In Schedule 1, section 1, relating to
newspapers, the Wage Board has placed the "working journalist" under
various groups. Group 3, as mentioned earlier, enumerates various categories of
employees. It is only necessary to refer to the two categories mentioned
therein, namely, "Artist" and "Calligraphist". They have
been referred to as follows "Artist" is a person who prepares for
publication drawing, layouts, maps, graphs or other similar embellishment,
illustrations of any kind or creative art. He may do some or all of these functions."
"Calligraphist" is an artist who performs journalistic work and also
calligraphs matters." We have already referred to the fact that the
appellant establishment comes under class V and in respect of the persons
coming under group 3, paragraph 4.27 gives wages, scale and grade.
Then the question is whether the Katibs are
Calligraphists as defined above. As per the definition given above, to come
within the definition of "Calligraphist" three conditions have to be
satisfied by an employee; (1) He must be an Artist; (2) He should perform
journalistic work; and (3) He should also calligraph matters.
The definition of the expression
"artist" has been given above. Therefore, one of the conditions for
being a "Calligraphist" is that the employee must be an Artist. As
that expression has been defined by the Wage Board, in our opinion, the
requirements of that definition will have to be satisfied before a person can
be characterised as an Artist.
If the evidence discloses that a person does
some or all the functions enumerated in the definition of "Artist"
then he must be considered to be an "Artist" as per the Wage Board
We will now consider whether the Katibs : (a)
(b) perform journalistic work; and (c) also
So far as calligraphing of matters is
concerned, the Labour Court has referred to the evidence of M. Ws. 1, 2 and 5
and also to 13 witnesses, all Katibs, who gave evidence on the side of the
Union. They have all given evidence to the effect that after getting the matter
from the editorial staff they write in a beautiful manner. In fact, even the
case of the appellant is that the Katibs write in a neat and beautiful hand
whatever is given to them by the editorial staff. The oral evidence, referred
to above, as well 445 as the documentary evidence Exs. W., 15, W.16 and W. 38
and various other exhibits of a similar nature clearly establish Oat the Katibs
Calligraph matters. We do not propose to again refer to the above items of
evidence, as we are in entire agreement with the Labour Court's appreciation.
as well as its findings based upon that evidence that the katibs calligraph
matters.In fact, it is also seen that the counsel for the appellant had
conceded before the Labour Court that the, Katibs calligraph matters.
But the contention appears to have been that
they are neither artists nor do they perform journalistic work which are the
two other essential conditions to be satisfied to come under the definition of
Calligraphist. That aspect will be dealt with by us later. We are of the
opinion that the evidence discussed by the Labour Court clearly shows that one
requirement of the definition, namely, that Katibs calligraph matters, is
Then the question is whether the Katibs are
Artists. The Wage Board has clearly indicated as to who an Artist is and that
has been referred to by us earlier. We cannot travel beyond the dictionary
provided by the Wage Board itself. So far 'as this aspect is concerned, here
again, the Labour' Court has referred to the various items of oral and
documentary evidence which clearly establish that Katibs pp.-pare for
publication drawing, lay outs and other similar embellishments. The witnesses
have deposed to the nature of the material given to them as also the completed
products, from which the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the
Katibs are Artists as defined in the Wage Board Recommendations. As we are of
the view that there has been a proper appreciation of the evidence by the
Labour Court, we are in entire agreement with the conclusion arrived at by that
Court in this regard.
This takes us to the question whether the
further requirement of the Katibs performing journalistic work is established
on the evidence. Neither the expression "journalistic work" nor
"journalist" has been defined either in the Act or in the Wage\ Board
Recommendations. The history of the legislation leading upto the Act has been
elaborately considered by this Court in Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. and
another v. The Union of India and others.(1) The definition of "working
journalist" in s. 2(f) of the Act deals with three aspects : (1) A person
whose principal avocation is that of a journalist and who is employed as such
in or in relation to any newspaper establishment, is a working journalist; (2)
In the expression "working journalist" is also included 11 categories
of persons mentioned therein; and (3) sub-clauses (1) and (2) exclude persons
mentioned therein 'from the definition of "Working journalist".
(1)  S.C.R. 12.
446 Normally, when the Wage Board
Recommendation has included Calligraphist. as a Working Journalist and has also
specified who is a Calligraphist, it should not be difficult to accept the
contention of the respondent that they do journalistic work. But Mr. V. S.
Desai, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that before a person can be
a working journalist, he must satisfy two conditions, namely, (1) He must be a
person whose principal avocation is that of a journalist; and (2) He must be
employed as such or in relation to any establishment as specified in the definition.
It is no doubt true that this Court in The Management of Express Newspapers
Ltd. v. B. Somavajulu and others(1) when dealing with the definition of a
working journalist contained in s. 2(b) of Act 1 of 1955, which is
substantially similar to s. 2(f) of the Act, has laid down the above two
requirements. In the said decision this Court was considering whether a person
who claimed to be a parttime correspondent in the moffusil area was a
"working journalist" under the inclusive part of the definition in s.
2(b) of Act 1 of 1955. At the time when this
decision was given there was no definition of "Calligraphist" as now
given by the Wage Board; nor was that category in the inclusive part in s.
2(f). The Wage Board's definition merely requires that he should be an Artist
"who performs journalistic work and also calligraphs matters". There
is no requirement in this definition that he should be a journalist whose
principal avocation is that of a journalist. It is a matter of considerable
doubt whether one of the conditions to be satisfied as laid down by this Court
that he must be a person whose principal avocation is that of a journalist when
interpreting the inclusive part of the definition as contained in s. 2(f) of
the Act will still apply. If Mr. Desai's contention is to be accepted, s. 2(f)
of the Act omitting the matters not relevant for our purpose will have to be
read as follows "Working journalist" means a person whose principal
avocation is that of a journalist and who is employed as such in, or in
relation to, any newspaper establishment, and includes a calligraphist who is
an artist who performs journalistic work and also calligraphs matters." It
needs no explanation to say that the above reading will not be a very happy
one. When once the Wage Board has given the definition of a Calligraphist and
included persons coming under that category in the definition of a
"working journalist" the only test to be applied will be whether the
person concerned satisfies the requirements of the definition given by the Wage
Board. We have already referred to the fact that it is no longer open to the
appellant to question the jurisdiction of the Wage Board when it included
Calligraphists in the definition of "Working Journalist".
(1)  3 S.C.R. 100.
447 Once the jurisdiction of the Wage Board
is conceded, the approach to be made is only to find out whether a person, who
claims to be a calligraphist satisfies the definition as given by the Wage
Board. No doubt the definition of Calligraphist will have to be read along with
the definition of "Artist" given by the Wage Board. We have already
held that the Labour Court's finding that Katibs are artists as defined by the
Wage Board is correct.
However, even applying the test, as contended
for by Mr. Desai in the instant case, as we will presently show, that
requirement is also satisfied. It should be noted that in the above decision,
;this Court clearly defines avocation as one's calling or profession. It has
been further laid down therein that when a journalist who is in the full time
employment, there is no difficulty in holding what his principal avocation is.
Again dealing with the requirement of "being employed as such", which
occurs also in s.2(f) of the Act, it is laid down that the requirement of
employment is necessary to create a relationship of employer and employee
between the journalist and the newspaper establishment. It has been further
held that the employment in the context necessarily postulates exclusive
employment, as a working journalist cannot serve two employers. But, later on,
this Court in the same decision has held that on a fair construction of s. 2
(b) of Act 1 of 1955 corresponding to s. 2(f) of the Act, it is possible to
hold that even a part time employee will satisfy the test of the definition.
But the point to be noted is that it is laid
down that the definition will be satisfied if the journalist is in exclusive
employ of a newspaper establishment, in which case his principal avocation will
be that of a journalist and he can be considered to be employed as such. In the
case before us there is no controversy that the Katibs are full time employees
and there is the relationship of master and servant. If so, it follows that the
tests laid down by this Court, in the decision referred to above, are
Then the question is whether they perform
As per the definition of Calligraphist given
by the Wage Board, it is only necessary that apart from the other functions
mentioned therein, the person concerned must perform journalistic work. In this
connection Mr. V. S. Desai referred us to the evidence of the various Katibs on
the side of the Union to the effect that their educational qualification does
not go beyond the IXth class. According to him, to be a journalist requires a
fairly high degree of education. Normally, it would be very desirable that they
have a very high degree of education; but the qualification necessary depends
upon the particular type of journalistic work that the employee is called upon
to do. In this case M.W. 5, is the editor of the appellant newspaper for about
20 years. He writes editorials. When he gave evidence he was the Chief Editor
of the 448 newspaper. Even according to him he has no high qualification in
Urdu and he has read Urdu upto VI or VII class. We have referred to this aspect
only to show that even such a responsible officer as the' Chief Editor of the
appellant has only such qualifications. 'Mat shows that even though the Katibs
have no high qualification they have got knowledge of Urdu in which language
the paper is being published.
It is significant to note that in group 3,
the Wage Board has included a Calligraphist as a Working Journalist along with
certain other categories who are admittedly working journalists by virtue of
the inclusive definition in s. 2(f) of the Act. Therefore, it is reasonable to
infer that a person who does the items of work, at least analogous to the
categories of persons who come within the definition under s. 2(f) can be
considered to be doing journalistic work.
The evidence in this case which has been
analysed and discussed by the labour Court establishes that Katibs make
corrections in the drafts furnished to them by the Editor.
They even sometimes substitute words,
compress and enlarge the matters according to the availability of space and
sometimes Edit. This type of work, in our opinion, can certainly be
characterised as performance of journalistic work. In particular, we will only
refer to the, evidence of M. Ws. 3 and 11. W.W.3 has spoken to the fact that he
corrects the spellings and idioms and also substitutes words and increases or
decreases matter according to availability of space. He has referred to the
original matter received by him as also the final material produced by him. He
has spoken to the fact that he had deleted certain facts contained in the
matter originally received by him and compressed the same in the new material
as no space was available. He has also spoken to; having added few lines of his
own. He has spoken with reference to the exhibits.
When he has referred in detail to the
original particulars received from the editorial staff and to the nature of the
alterations made by him, there has been no suggestion in cross-examination on
the side of the appellant that his statements are not borne out by the records.
To a similar effect is the evidence of W.W. 11 who has also spoken to the fact
that he has either reduced the material on his own responsibility or has to put
the matter in a small space or increased the matter by making certain additions
of his own.. Even in respect of certain technical aspects relating to
certain'matters, the witneses have deposed to the fact that as there were very
serious mistakes in the matters sent to them, they of their own volition
corrected as they are well acquainted with the subject with which they were
dealing with. In our opinion, all this evidence clearly establishes that in the
course of their duties,, the Katibs perform journalistic work.
44 9 From the discussion contained above, it
follows that the Katib are Artists who perform journalistic work and who also
calligraph matters. Accordingly, they satisfy the definition of
"Calligraphist" as per the Wage Board Recommendations and they are
"working journalists" under s.
2(f) of the Act. It follows that the Labour
Court was right in holding that they are entitled to the higher scale of wages
recommended by the Wage Board for Calligraphists and accepted by the Central
In the result, the Award of the Labour Court
is confirmed and this appeal dismissed with costs.
It is represented by the appellant's counsel
that 70% of the increased rate has been already paid. The appellant to pay the
balance amount within 3 months from today in accordance with the directions
already given regarding interest.
G.C. Appeal dismissed.