M/S Damodar
Mangalji & Co. Vs. The Regional Director [2001] Insc 115 (27 February 2001)
S.R.Babu,
S.N.Phukan Rajendra Babu, J. :
Appeal (civil) 8891 of 1997
L.T.J
C.A.No.8890/97
The appellant before us is aggrieved by the application of the notification
dated 21.6.1977 issued by the Government of Goa,
Daman & Diu under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 [hereinafter
referred to as the Act]. The appellant raised a contention that since they are
engaged in mining industry and as a part of the integrated activity of such
industry have an office away from the mines as such. The contention put forth
before the ESI Court is that the said notification, in so far as it is
applicable to a mining industry, is beyond the scope of the Act for the reason
that the appropriate Government means, in respect of the establishment under
the control of the Central Government or a railway administration or a major
port or a mine or oilfield, the Central Government, and in other cases, it is
the State Government. The submission made on behalf of the appellant is that
the expression mine used in Section 2(1) of the Act has to be read along with
the expressions such as in respect of and read so, would mean not only the area
where extraction of ores takes place, but also the other offices and that the
enactment itself intends to make a distinction, it has so been made as is clear
from Section 2(12) which defines the expression factory, and mine which is
subject to the operation of the Mines Act, 1952 is excluded from the purview of
the Act and placed heavy reliance on the decision of this Court in The Ballarpur
Collieries Co. vs. State Industrial Court, Nagpur & Ors., 1966 (2) SCR 589.
On behalf of the respondent, strong reliance is placed upon the decision in M/s
Serajuddin & Co. vs. Their Workmen, 1962 Supp. (3) SCR 934, where the
specific question what is the appropriate Government has been considered and
held the expression mine used in Section 2(a)(i) of the Mines Act, 1952 to
confine only to those cases where it really concerns a mine where extraction of
ores actually takes place as defined under the Mines Act and not other parts of
the establishment.
In the
present case, the mines is situated at Pisurlen and the office of the mine at Sanquelin.
The payment of the staff and workers is made through the office at Sanquelin
while the mining operations and the incidental work is done at Pisurlen. The
Head Office of the establishment is at Panaji.
In The
Ballarpur Collieries Co.s case [supra] this Court was concerned with a
notification which stated that the Act would come into force on 21.11.1947 in
all industries except the following and then went on to name four industries,
the third one being mines. This Court held that after the word following the
word industries must be read and thus read the notification in effect said the
Act would come into effect on the given date in all industries except the
industries mentioned. Therefore, it was held that it is not only mines but the
mining industry itself that was exempted from the operation of the Act. In M/s Serajuddin
& Co.s case [supra] the dispute relating to the Head Office of a mining
company was referred to the Industrial Tribunal by the West Bengal Government
under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was held that the West Bengal
Government was the appropriate Government and the decision turned on the
interpretation of Section 2(a)(i) of the ID Act which defines the appropriate
Government. The crucial words that fell for interpretation were in relation to
an industrial dispute concerning a banking or insurance company or mine or an
oilfield or a major port. It was held that the word mine as used in Section
2(a)(i) of the ID Act referred to a mine as defined in the Mines Act and that a
dispute with reference to the Head Office of the mine was not a dispute
concerning a mine which must mean mine as defined under the Mines Act. Therefore,
this Court, having interpreted the expression the appropriate Government in the
Industrial Disputes Act in M/s Serajuddin & Co.s case [supra] which is
identical with the expression the appropriate Government as defined under the
Act, we think the view taken by the High Court is correct and calls for no
interference. This appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. No Costs.
C.A.No.8891/97
In this matter questions arising for consideration are identical to those arose
in C.A.No.8890/97. Following the decision therein, this appeal also stands
dismissed. I.A. is filed by one of the Workmen-Union in support of the case of
the appellant.
Inasmuch
as we have considered the contentions of the impleading applicant also along
with that of the appellant and have allowed the said applicant to intervene in
the matter, impleadment is unnecessary. The I.A. is disposed of accordingly.
Back
