State of Bihar Vs. S. K. Roy [1966] INSC
112 (25 April 1966)
25/04/1966
ACT:
Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes
Act, 1948, Sec.
2(c)-"Employer"-meaning of-by
reference to the meaning of an it "owner", of a "coal
mine"--as defined in Sec. 2, Mines Act, 1952.
HEADNOTE:
The respondent owned a coke plant which
originally belonged to a group of collieries but was later transferred to him.
It was situated adjacent to a coal mine on
the surface land which formed part of the coal fields beneath which the coal
mine was worked. The respondent did not mine or excavate coal himself nor carry
on any operation for the purpose of obtaining coal. His coke plant was a
bye-product Plant in which hard coke as well as some other byeproducts were
manufactured.
The respondent was prosecuted under para 70
of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme issued under the Coal Mines Provident Fund
and Bonus Schemes Act, 1948 (Act 46 of 1948) on a complaint that as an owner of
a coal mine and an employer within the meaning of the Scheme, he had failed to
pay certain contributions to the Provident Fund. Although he was convicted by
the trying Magistrate and his appeal to the Sessions Judge dismissed, the High
Court allowed a Revision Application and set aside the conviction.
The question for consideration in the appeal
to this Court was whether the respondent was an owner of a coal mine within the
meaning of s. 2 of the Mines Act, 1952 and therefore an employer as defined by
Section 2(e) of Act 46 of 1948. The expression "coal mine" in Section
2(b) of the Mines Act, 1952 means "any excavation where any operation for
the purpose of obtaining coal has been carried on and includes all works,
machinery, tramways and sidings, whether above or below ground, in or adjacent
to or belonging to a coal mine HELD:
The respondent was not the owner of a coal
mine within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Mines Act, 1952 and the High
Court had rightly acquitted him. [264 C].
The expression "belonging to a coal
mine" is the controlling expression governing all aspects of the
activities of the coal mine within the definition of s. 2(b) and all subsidiary
things such as works, machinery, tramways, and sidings are brought within the
definition of the "coal mine" only if they appertain to the coal
mine, that is to. say, if they are under the. same ownership. In order to carry
out the legislative intention it is therefore necessary to substitute the
conjunction "and" for the Conjunction "or" in the
definition of a "coal mine" in s. 2(b) of the Act. [262 D-E].
Section 2(b) of the Coal Mines Provident Fund
and Bonus Schemes (Amendment) Act, 1965 and Ormond Investment Co. Limited v.
Betts: 1928 A.C. 143, 156; referred to.
260
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal
Appeal No. 158 of 1965.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated
September 15, 1965 of the Bihar High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1326 of
1963.
R. H. Dhebar, V. D. Mahajan and B. R. G. K.
Achar, for the appellant.
N. C. Chatterjee, Suprakash Bannerjee and
Sukumar Ghose, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ramaswami, J. The question of law presented for determination in this appeal is
whether the respondent-S. K. Roy-is the ,owner of a coal mine' within the
meaning of s. 2(b) and 2(e) of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes
Act, 1948 (Act 46 of 1948), hereinafter called the 'Act'.
The respondent was prosecuted under para 70
of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme (hereinafter called the 'Scheme') 'for
violation of cls. (a), (d) and (f) of paragraph 70 read with paragraphs 33A,
38, 42 and 69A of the Scheme. An Inspector appointed under the Act filed a
complaint against the respondent alleging that he was the owner of the Bhowra
Coke Plant and that he had contravened certain provisions of the Scheme. It was
alleged that the respondent had failed 'to pay the contribution for the
Provident, Fund, both employers and employees' from April, 1960 to November,
1960 and had failed to submit returns in Form "H" with corresponding
declaration in Form "A" and the statement in Form 'P' as provided
under the Regulations.
The respondent was held guilty by the trying
Magistrate and was sentenced to pay a fineof Rs. 500 and, in default, to
undergo 3 months' simple imprisonment under paragraph 70(a).
The respondent went in appeal to the Sessions
Judge, who dismissed the appeal and confirmed the sentence imposed by the
Magistrate. The respondent filed a Revision Application in the Patna High Court
which allowed the Revision Application and set aside the conviction and
sentence imposed on the respondent holding that the Coke Plant owned by the
respondent was not a Coal Mine within the meaning of the Scheme and that the
Coke plant was not subject to the provisions of the Scheme and the respondent
was not the owner of the mine-within the meaning of the Act and the Scheme.
The facts found or admitted in this case are:
(1) The Bhowra Coke Plant originally belonged to the Bhowra Group of collieries
owned by the Eastern Coal Company, but subsequently in or about the years 1945
to 1947 the Coke Plant was transferred by sale to the respondent, (2) The group
of Bhowra Collieries was subsequently sold to the Bhowra Kankanee Collieries
Limited, (3) The respondent is the owner of the Coke Plant and the lessee of
the 261 land on which it stands on payment of certain royalty by way of the
ground rent for the land, the lessor, at the relevant time, being the Bhowra
Kankanee Collieries Limited owning the coal mine and coal field area, where the
Bhowra Coal Mines are and the Coke Plant is situated, (4) The Coke Plant is not
only adjacent to the coal mine but is also situated on the surface land, which
forms part of the coal fields which and beneath which the coal mine is worked
by the Bhowra Kankanee Collieries Ltd., (5) The respondent does not carry on
the work of any coal mine therein, he does not excavate any coal by carrying on
any operation for the purpose of obtaining coal, (6) The Coke Plant is a byeproduct
coke plant in which hard coke as well as some other bye-products are
manufactured.
The question to be considered is whether, in
this state of facts, the respondent is the owner of a coal mine within the
meaning of the Act and the Scheme.
Under S. 2(e) of the Act the expression
"Employer" means "the owner of a coal mine as defined in clause
(g) of s. 3 of the Indian Mines Act, 1923". The Indian Mines Act, 1923 has
been repealed and substituted by the Mines Act 1952 (Act 35 of 1952). In the
latter Act the word "owner" has been defined in cl. (1) of s. 2. By
virtue of s. 8 of the General Clauses Act, the definition of the word
"Employer" in cl.
(e) of s. 2 of the Act should be construed
with reference to the definition of the word "owner" in cl. (1) of s.
2 of Act 35 of 1952, which repealed the earlier Act and reenacted it (See also
the decision of this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. M.P. Singh etc.(1).)
According to s. 2(1) of Act 35 of 1952 the word "owner", when used in
relation to a mine, means " any person who is the immediate proprietor or
lessee or occupier of the mine or of any part thereof and in the case of a mine
the business whereof is being carried on by a liquidator or receiver, such
liquidator or receiver............... The expression "coal mine" is
separately defined in cl. (b) of s. 2 of the Act which reads as follows:
" 2. (b) 'Coal mine' means any
excavation where any operation for the purpose of obtaining coal has been or is
being carried on, and includes all works, machinery, tramways and sidings,
whether above or below ground, in or adjacent to or belonging to a coal mine:
Provided that it shall not include any part
of the coal mine on which a manufacturing process is being carried on unless
such process is a process for coke-making or the dressing of minerals-."
As a matter of construction it must be held that all works, machinery, tramways
and sidings, whether above or below ground, in or adjacent to a coal mine will
come within the scope and ambit of (1) [1960] 2 S.C.R. 605: A.I.R. 1960,S.C.
569.
262 the definition only when they belong to
the coal mine. In other words, the word "or" occurring before the
expression "belonging to a coal mine" in the main definition has to
be read to mean " and". Any other interpretation would lead to an
anomalous and startling consequence. Any works, machinery, tramways and sidings
which do not appertain to the coal mine in the sense of ownership cannot come
within the meaning of the expression "coal mine" as given in the first
part of cl. (b) of s. 2 of the Act. They would come by way of subsidiary works,
machinery or the like if they appertain to and belong to the coal mine in the
sense of carrying on excavation work by doing the operation for the purpose of
obtaining coal. Suppose, for example, in a coal field area, the lessee from the
Government is working a mine, but the tramways and sidings have been set up by
a railway company only for the purpose of transport of coal.
It cannot be imagined that the owner of the
tramways or railway siding is the owner of the coal mine within the meaning of
the Act, for the legislature could not have intended that the work of transport
of coal will, in itself, constitute the working of a coal mine within the
meaning of the Act' In our opinion, the expression "belonging to a coal
mine" is the controlling expression governing all aspects of the
activities of the coal mine within the definition of s. 2(b) and all subsidiary
things such as works, machinery, tramways and sidings are brought within the
definition of the "coal mine" only if they appertain to the coal
mine, that is to say, if they are under the same ownership. We are, therefore,
of the opinion that in order to carry out the legislative intention it is
necessary to substitute the conjunction " and" for the conjunction
"or" in the definition of a "coal mine" in s.
2(b) of the Act.
It is legitimate, in this connection, to
refer to the expanded definition of the word "coal mine" in s. 2(b)
of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes (Amendment) Act, 1965 (Act
45 of 1965) which reads as follows:
"(2) for clause (b), the following
clause shall be substituted, namely:
(b) 'coal mine' means any excavation where
any operation for the purpose of searching for or obtaining coal has been or is
being carried on, and includes (i) all borings and bore holes-, (ii) all
shafts, in or adjacent to and belong to a coal mine, whether in the course of
being sunk or not;
(iii) all levels and inclined planes in the
course of being driven:
263 (v) all conveyors or aerial rope-ways
provided for bringing into or removal from a coal mine of coil or other
articles or for the removal of refuse there from;
(vi)all adits, levels, planes, machinery,
works, railways, tramways and sidings, in or adjacent to and belonging to a
coal mine;
(vii).all Workshops situated within the
precincts of a coal mine 'and under the same management and Used for purposes
connected with that coal mine or a number of coal mines under the same
management;
(ix)..all power stations for supplying
electricity for the purpose of working the coal mine or a number of coal mines
under the same management;
(x) any premises for the time being used for
depositing refuse from a coal mine, or in which any operation in connection
with such refuse is being carried on, being premises exclusively occupied by
the employer of the coal mine;
(xiii).....any premises in or adjacent to and
belonging to a coal mine, on which any plant or other machinery connected with
a coal mine is situated or on which any process ancillary to the work of a coal
mine is being carried on;" It should be noticed that in sub-cl. (vi) it
has been provided that the word "coal mine" includes all adits,
levels, planes, machinery, works, railways, tramways and sidings in or adjacent
to and belonging to a coal mine.
Similarly, in cl. (vii) it includes "all
workshops situated within the precincts or a coal mine and under the same
management and used for purposes connected with that coal mine or a number of
coal mines under the same management".
Again, cl. (ii) of the amended s. 2(b) states
that the word "coal mine" includes "all shafts, in or adjacent
to and belonging to a coal mine, whether in the course of being sunk or
not". Similarly, cl. (xiii) of s. 2(b) provides that the word "coal mine"
includes "any premises in or adjacent to and belonging to a coal mine, on
which any plant or other machinery connected with a coal mine is situated or on
which any process ancillary to the work of a coal mine is being carried
on". In our opinion, the change in the language of s. 2(b) of the earlier
Act brought about by the amending Act (Act 45 of 1965) was not meant to bring
about a change Sup5CI-19 264 of law in this respect but was meant to fix a
proper interpretation upon the earlier Act. It is a well recognised principle
in dealing with matters of construction that subsequent legislation may be
looked at in order to see what is the proper interpretation to be put upon the
earlier Act where the earlier Act is obscure or ambiguous or readily capable of
more than one interpretation. (See Ormond Investment Co. Ltd.,v. Betts(1).
For the reasons expressed, we hold that the
respondent is not the owner of a coal mine within the meaning of s. 2(b) of the
Act and the High Court has rightly acquitted the respondent of the offence
alleged against him under the Scheme. We accordingly dismiss this appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
[1928] A.C. 143 at p. 166.
Back
