Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7
PETITIONER:
LABOUR INSPECTOR, CENTRAL
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE CHITTAPORE STONE QUARRYING CO. (P) LTD. & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT05/04/1972
BENCH:
PALEKAR, D.G.
BENCH:
PALEKAR, D.G.
VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.
MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN
CITATION:
1972 AIR 1177 1973 SCR (1) 83
ACT:
Minimum Wages Act 1948, Item 8 of Part No. 1 of Schedule-
Stone-breaking and stone crushing, meaning of-Shahabad
stone, quarrying of-Whether employment in stone breaking and
stone crushing.
HEADNOTE:
The Minimum Wages Act 1948 was enacted to provide minimum
rates of wages in certain employment mentioned in the
Schedule. Item No. 8 of part No. 1 of the Schedule refers
to employment in stone-breaking or stone crushing. By
notification under the Act minimum wages was fixed for those
employed in stone breaking or stone crushing in Gulbarga
District, Mysore State. The appellant Inspector
was of the view that respondent No. 1 which was quarrying a
variety of stone called Shahabad stone in Gulbarga District
was engaged in the activity of stone breaking and stone
crushing and since respondent No. 1 was in breach of some of
the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder he
adopted proceedings to enforce the provisions in the court
of the Munsif Magistrate. Respondent No. 1 filed a writ
petition in the High Court for quashing the said proceedings
contending that its activity was not one of stone breaking
or stone crushing but of mining limestone slabs. According
to him after removing the layers of earth and the thick
layers of limestone thin layers of limestone were brought
out and these- were then cut tip into regular sizes and this
did not amount to stone breaking or stone crushing. The
High Court held that removing Shahabad stone involved
breaking and crushing but on the view that what was broken
or crushed was not ’stone’ but in the nature of a mineral
quashed the proceedings. In appeal by certificate,
HELD : Per Vaidialingam and Palekar, JJ. Stone breaking and
stone crushing in relation to limestone is that activity in
which non-stratified limestone, recognised as rock, is
broken or crushed into irregular fragments or sizes and then
marketed or otherwise used. The more valuable and rarer
stratified limestone which is suitable for use as dimension
stone is not the stone commercially exploited for breaking
and crushing. Hence the employment of quarrying Shahabad
stone is not the same as the scheduled employment of stone
breaking or stone crushing referred to in item 8 of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7
Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act. The High Court was,
therefore right in quashing the proceedings. [87A-C]
Madhya Pradesh Mineral Industry Association v. The Regional
Labour Commissioner Jabalpur and Ors., [1960] 3 S.C.R. 476,
applied.
Per Mathew, J. (dissenting) There is no distinction between
stone obtained by crushing or breaking of non-stratified
rock and that obtained by cutting stratified rock, for the
purpose of construing the word ’stone’ in item No. 8 as
stone obtained in both the cases is a piece of rock.[88H]
In Venkataramaniyas Law Lexicon and in the Shorter Oxford
Dictionary quarrying is defined to include cutting. When
this Court in the cases of Mohanlal Devichand Shah and
Madhya Pradesh Mineral Industry
84
Association said that employment in stone-breaking or stone-
cushing refer to "quary operation "this court was fullyu
alive to the process in-- volved in quarry operation [90F-H]
It must therfore be held that employment in quarrying
operation for extraction, of Shahabad stone is employment
within the ambit of item 8 of Part I of the Schedule. [91B]
Madhya Pradesh Mining Industry Association v. The Regional
Labour Commissioner, Jahalpur and Ors., [1960]. 3 S.C.R.
476, Ray Limestone and Co. v. Sub-Divisional Officer Ranchi,
A.I.R. 1968 Patna 39 and State of Maharashtra v. Mohanlal
Devichand Shah, [1965] 3 S.C.R. 461, referred to.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION10N : Civil Appeal No. 40 of
1968.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated July 25, 1967 of
the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No. 1860 of 1965.
R. H. Dhebar, for the appellant.
K. Srinivasamurthy and Naunit Lal, for respondent No. 1.
R. B. Datar, for respondent No. 2.
The Judgment of Vaidialingam and Palekar, JJ. was delivered
by Palekar, J. Mathew, J. delivered a dissenting opinion.
Palekar, J. This appeal by certificate granted by the High
Court of Mysore raises an interesting point as to whether
quarrying of Shahabad stone is an activity which could be
properly described as "stone breaking or stone crushing"
mentioned in the Schedule to The Minimum Wages, Act, 1949.
By notification issued by the Appropriate Government under
the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 minimum wages were fixed for
those employed in stone breaking or stone crushing in
Gulbarga District. The appellant Inspector was of the view
that respondent no. Chittapore Stone quarrying Company
(Pvt.) Ltd., Chittapurwhich was quarrying a variety of
stone called Shahabad Stone in Chittapur, District Gulbarga,
was engaged in the activity of stone breaking and stone
crushing, and since respondent no. 1 was in breach of some
of the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the
rules made thereunder he adopted proceedings to enforce the
provisions in the court of the Munsif Magistrate, Chittapur,
respondent no. 3. Respondent no. 1 thereupon filed a writ
petition for quashing the proceedings (Writ Petition No.
1860 of 1965) in the Mysore High Court alleging, inter alia,
that the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act did not apply
to the particular activity in which it was engaged because,
in it_submission, the activity was not one of stone breaking
or stone-crushing
85
but of mining limsestone slabs. The High Court held that the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7
process of removing Shahabad stone involved breaking and
crushing but it was also of the view that what was broken or
crushed was not really ’stone’ but a substance which very
nearly approximated to a mineral. In that view it quashed
the proceedings before the Munsif Magistrate.
The activity in which respondent no. 1 is engaged is
described as follows :
"The earth which varies in depth from place to
place over the limestone layers is removed by
manual labour. This work of removing the soil
is known as earth-work. The thin limestone
layers’from which the flooring stones are cut
into regular sizes and which is the, main
object of mining by us are reached after
removing some thick layer of limestone over
these thin layers. The removal of the
overburden of earth and thick layers of lime--
stone is incidental to the mining operations
conducted by us. The main operation of our
mining is to bare open the thin layers of
limestone and cut them into regular sizes. It
is submitted that no stone breaking or stone
crushing operations are carried on in our
mines."
The question is whether the operation described above can be
appropriately described as stone breaking or stone crushing.
The object of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, as is well-known,
is to provide minimum rates of wages in certain employments.
Section 2(g) defines "scheduled employment" as "an
employment specified in the Schedule, or any process or
branch of work forming part of such employment". The
Schedule has two parts and item no. 8 in part no. 1 refers
to employment in stone breaking or stone crushing. The Act,
therefore, provides that where the appropriate Government
fixes by notification a minimum wage to be paid to, those
who are employed on stonebreaking or stone-crushing the
employees will have to be paid the minimum wage so fixed.
It was the appellant’s case that such a notification is in
operation in Gulbarga District of Mysore State and since the
respondent no. 1 was engaged in the activity of stone-
breaking and stone-crushing in which workers have been
employed the respondent was liable to pay minimum wages, as
fixed.
There is no definition of stone-breaking or stone-crushing
in the Act. But we know what that activity is in the common
parlance of the business and commercial world. It appears
to us that it will be a futile exercise in semantice to try
to explore what the content of a stone is-whether it is a
mineral or not, or
86
whether it is so called when it is obtained in open quarries
or subterranean mines or whether breaking or crushing would
also include cutting in dimensional forms. In the common
acceptance of the business. and commercial world, stone-
breaking and stone crushing is a commercial activity in
which stone, in the sense of common rock, is, to fragments
by mechanical means such fragments being marked or used for
profit. In this connection reference may be made to Madhya
Pradesh Mineral Industry Association v. The Regional Labour
Commissioner Jabalpur and others(1) and to the following
observations therein at page 485.
"The word "stone" as popularly understood in
ordinary parlance particularly when it is
coupled with the word "breaking" or "crushing"
would exclude manganese. When we speak of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7
stone-breaking or stone-crushing normally we
refer to stone in the sense of " piece of
rock," and that would exclude manganese.
Employment in stone-breaking or stone-crushing
in ’this sense would refer to quarry
operation,,."
Information extracted from the Encyclopaedia Britannica
under the words "stone" and "quarrying", shows that common
rock which is commercially exploited falls broadly two
categories, one igneous, like granite, and the other
sedimentary, like limestone. These rocks undergo a
qualitative change under tremendous mountain pressures and
then they are known as metamorphic. limestone, for example,
becomes marble.
All the above categories of rocks are generally found in two
varieties-stratified and nonstratified. When rock is found
in thin layers one over the other, it is known as
stratified. Where it is not so found, it is
non--stratified. Commercial exploitation of these two
varieties is distinct. Non-stratified rock, which is found
in abundance in quarries or otherwise, yields to profitable
exploitation by breaking and crushing into smaller irregular
fragments. The rarer stratified stone is much more valuable
as it is found in layers which are skillfully removed to
give large dimensional slabs. In the first case there. is
generally blasting with the help of explosives. In the
second blasting is avoided as it will cause damage to the
layers. The end product in both is used. for construction
mostly in buildings and roads. In’ limestone as in all
stone, suitable stratified layers are commercially exploited
for dimensional quarrying by a very skillful process. The
product namely the slab after being polished is used for
flooring, facing and the like. Quarrying of Shahabad stone
with which we are concerned is of this type. The other kind
of limestone, that is to say. non-stratified limestone is
suitable for being broken and crushed into smaller fragments
and it has its commercial use in building construction.
(1) [1960] 3 S.C.R. 476.
87
manufacture of cement and the like Store-breaking and stone-
crushing in relation to limestone is, therefore, that
activity in which non-stratified limestone, recognised as
rock, is broken or crushed into irregular fragments or
sizes-and then marketed or otherwise used. The more
valuable and rarer’ stratified limestone ,which is suitable
for use as dimension stone is not the stone commercially
exploited for breaking and crushing. Hence the employment
of quarrying Shahabad stone is not the same as the scheduled
employment of stone breaking or stone crushing referred to
in item 8 of the Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act.
Consequently the minimum wages fixed for the employment of
stone-breaking and stone-crushing will not apply to the
operation of quarrying Shahabad stone which is the main
activity of respondent no. 1. The High Court was, therefore,
right in quashing the proceedings under the Minimum Wages
Act and the appeal must be dismissed. The appellant shall
pay the costs of respondent no. 1.
Mathew , J. The facts have already been stated. It is,
therefore, unnecessary to rehearse them.
The question for consideration is whether Shahabad stone is
stone’ within the meaning of that expression in item No. 8
in part 1 of the schedule and whether employment in
quarrying Shahabad stone is "employment in stone-breaking or
stone-crushing" within the meaning of the said item No. 8.
In the affidavit in support of the writ petition, the nature
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7
of the work involved in quarrying Shahabad stone is
described as follows :-
"The earth which varies in depth from place
to place over the limestone layers is removed
by manual labour ... The thin limestone layers
from which the flooring stones are cut into
regular sizes and which is the main object of
mining by us, are reached after removing some
thick layers of limestone over these thin
layers. The removal of the overburden of
earth and thick layers of limestone is
incidental to the mining operations conducted
by us. The main operation of our mining is to
bare open the thin layers of limestone and to
cut them into regular sizes. . . . "
The High Court was of the view that the word ’stone’ occur-
ring in item No. 8 has to be understood as a piece of
ordinary rock and that Shahabad stone cannot be regarded as
the ordinary rock of the district but an exceptional
Substance with exceptional quality About it and, therefore,
it is not ’stone’ within the meaning of item No. 8 of the
schedule.
88
In Madhya Pradesh Mining Industry Association v. The
Regional Labour Commissioner, Jabalpur and Others(1) this
court
said:
"In a chemical or geological sense stones may
include ’manganese and that is one of the
meanings given to the word in the Shorter
Oxford Dictionary. On the other hand, the
word ’stone’ as popularly understood in
ordinary parlance particularly when it is
coupled with the word "breaking" or "crushing"
would exclude manganese. When we speak of
stone-breaking or stone-crushing normally we
refer to stone in the sense of ’piece of rock’
and that would exclude manganese. Employment
in stone-breaking or stone-crushing in this
sense would refer to quarry operations. . "
Therefore the word ’stone’ in item No. 8 must be taken as
used in the sense of a piece of rock; the question then is
whether Shababad stone is ’stone’ in that sense for the
purpose of item No. 8. Shahabad stone is nothing but
limestone. The companies which have been quarrying and
selling these limestone slabs manufacture 4 different
varieties which are used as building material for flooring,
roofing, etc. (see B. Rama Rao, Mineral Resources of Bidar,
Gulbarga and Raichur Districts, published in Bulletin No. 23
of Department of Mines and Geology, Bangalore, 1964, v. 51).
Rocks are of three kinds- igneous, sedimentary and metamor-
phic. Limestone is a principal kind of sedimentary rock
(see Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 10, pp., 163-165).
’Stone’ for the purpose of item No. 8 will include limestone
"Stone, as the word is most generally used, is
a piece of rock or of the solid crust of the
earth, and hence of natural origin and
generally of inorganic corn position ....
Kinds of stones or rocks are distinguished by
prefixes e.g., limestone, sandstone,. ..."
(See, Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 21 p.436.
But it is said that rocks are generally found in two
varietiesstratified and non-stratified that when rock is
found in , thin layers one over the other, it is known as
stratified and where it is not so found’ it is non-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7
stratified It is also said that non-stratified rock which
is found in abundance in quarries or otherwise, yields to
profitable exploitation by breaking and crushing into
smaller irregular fragments and that stratified stone is
much more valuable as it is found in layers which are
skilfully removed to give large dimensional slabs. I am
unable to see any distinction between stone obtained by
crushing or breaking of non-stratified rock and
(1) [1960] 3 S.C.R. 476 at p. 485.
89
that obtained by cutting stratified rock, for the purpose of
constructing the word ’stone’ in item No. 8 as stone
obtained in both the cases is a piece of rock.
In Madhya Pradesh Mining Industry Association v. The Regio-
nal Labour Commissioner, Jabalpur(1), the mining operation
was for extraction of manganese ore and the process
consisted of removal of over-burden, breaking of big mineral
stones like boulder to get at manganese. On these facts,
the Court held that stone-breaking or crushing was
incidental to the extraction of manganese. The Court
further said that the operation of stone-breaking or stone-
crushing referred to in item No. 8 of part I of the schedule
must refer to the main operation in the process and not to
the incidental operation. The question whether a particular
operation is main or incidental, therefore, arose for
consideration in respect of the mining operation itself. It
is obvious that the paragraph in the affidavit in support of
the writ petition which has already been extracted was
inserted with an eye to bring the case within the ambit of
this ruling. But here, the limestone itself is extracted
for the purpose of being used as building material for
flooring and roofing. The operation of quarrying limestone,
therefore, is not an incidental purpose but the main purpose
itself.
In Ray Limestone and Co. & another v. Sub-Divisional Officer
Ranchi(2), the Court was concerned with the question whether
quarrying operation for extracting limestone would involve
employment in stone-breaking and stone-crushing within the
meaning of item 8. The Court held that quarrying of
limestone involved stone-breaking or stone-crushing and that
employment in the quarry would attract item No. 8 of the
schedule.
But counsel for the 1st respondent contended that quarrying
operation in extracting limestone does not involve stone-
breaking or stone-crushing. He contended that only a
restricted meaning can be given to the world "stone-
breaking", that breaking a piece according to size from a
large block of rock by a sharp weapon would not be "stone-
breaking" or "stone-crushing", and that it is only when rock
is blown up by a dynamite. or broken by a sledge hammer or
other blunt instrument that the process can be called "
stone-breaking" or "stone-crushing". In other words, the
contention was, if rock is broken to pieces by cutting with
a sharp weapon, that wouldnot involve "stone-breaking" or
"stone-crushing". This, I think, is too metaphysical a
distinction to be imported in the construction of item 8 of
the schedule. Looking at the object of the Act, I do not
think that the distinction between cutting rock into pieces
by a sharp instrument and breaking it into
(1) [1960] 3 S.C.R. 476.
(2) A.I.R. 1968 Patna 39.
8Sup.CI/72
90
pieces by an instrument like a hammer, though fine from a
meti. culous linguistic stand-point would be rational from
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7
the purposive approach. Both ’processes involve "stone-
breaking". I agree with the High Court when it said
"...... we do not see why stripping open thin
layers of Shahabad, stone and cutting them to
regular sizes, which are the main operations,
should not be regarded as stone-breaking or,
stone-crushing in a quarry so as to bring it
within the ambit of item 8 in the schedule.
Consequently, we are unable to accept the
contention of, Mr. Breenivasa Murty that no,
stone-breaking or stonecrushing operations are
involved in quarrying of Shahabad stones or
that such operations are incidental and not
the main operations. . . "
In State of Maharashtra v. Mohanlal Devichand Shah(1) Sikri
J. as he then was, speaking for the Court, quoted with
approval the following passage from Madhya Pradesh Mineral
Industry .Association v. The Regional Labour Commissioner,
Jabalpur(2).
"When we speak of stone-breaking or stone-
crushing normally we refer to stone in the
sense of "piece of rock’ and that would
exclude manganese. Employment in stone-
breaking or stone-crushing in this sense would
refer to quarry operations."
and said that :
"This Court thus read Entry 8 (item 8) to
refer to quarry operations. . ."
"Quarry" is defined in Venkataramaiya’s Law Lexicon, Vol.
IT, 1971 Ed., p. 1322, as follows :--
"As a noun the term ’quarry’ has been defined
as the spot where rock is quarried.... an
excavation or other place from which stone is
taken by cutting, blasting or the like . . .It
is open excavation usually for obtaining
building stone, slate or limestone. . . ."
In Shorter OxfordEnglish Dictionary, 3rd edition, p. 1636,
the meaning of ’quary is given as hereunder:--
"An excavation from which stone for building, etc., is
obtained by cutting, blasting or the like".
When this Court said that employment in stone-breaking or
stone-crushing would refer to "quarry operation" this Court
was fully alive to the process involved in quarrying
operation. That
(1) [1965]3 S.C.R. 461, at p. 465-6.
(2) [1960] 3 S.C.R. 476.
91
the operation involves the extraction of limestone by
cutting also is clear from the definition of quarry.
I therefore, come to the conclusion that employment in
quarrying operation for extraction of Shahabad stone is
employment within the ambit of item 8 of Part I of the
Schedule. I would allow the appeal and dismiss the writ
petition without any order as to costs.
ORDER
In accordance with the judgment of the majority, the appeal
is dismissed. The appellant shall pay the costs of
respondent No. 1.
G.C. Appeal dismissed.
92