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, 1this Court. clearly defines avocation as one's calling or profession. It has been further laid down therein that when a c journalist who is in the full time employment, there is no diffi· culty in holding what his principal avocation is. Agairi 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 neces0 sarily 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 I 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 ,,vint to be noted is that it is laid down that the definition will be satisfied if the journajist 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 th<J tests F laid down by this Cour.t, in the decision referred to above, are satisfied.
