Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 5920 of 1999
PETITIONER:
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
RESPONDENT:
ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/08/2005
BENCH:
ARIJIT PASAYAT AND H.K. SEMA
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
ORDER
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. :
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of
the Orissa High Court quashing Clause-iii of paragraph 7 of the Explanation
in Notification No. 514(E) dated 12.07.1994 issued by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour in purported exercise of powers conferred by
Section 3(1)(b) read with Section 4(1)(iii) and 5(2) of the Minimum Wages
Act, 1948 (in short ‘the Act). Stand of the writ petitioners before the
High Court in the writ petition was that the inclusion sought to be made
was impermissible in the background of what has been stated in The Mines
Act, the Mines Rules and other pieces of legislation dealing with mining
activities. The relevant portion of the Notification reads as follows :
EXPLANATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE NOTIFICATION :
"A person working or employed in or in connection with a mine is
said to be working or employed "below ground" if he is working or
employed :-
(i) in a shaft which has been or is in the course of being
sunk; or
(ii) in any excavation which extends below superjacent ground;
or
(iii) in an open cast working in which the depth of the
excavation measured from its highest to its lowest point exceeds
six metres."
The High Court held that the authority issuing the Notification overlooked
that it did not have the source of statutory power to incorporate such
explanation in the Notification as done and, accordingly, as noted above,
held that though the Notification was in operation, the Clause-(iii) of
paragraph 7 of the Explanation is non est.
Mr. Amarendra Sharan, learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that
the High Court failed to notice various facts of the Act and put
unnecessary stress on the statutes relating to mining activities which had
no relevance so far as the fixation of minimum wages is concerned. In
response, Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondent-Company submitted that the classification contained in clauses
(i) & (ii) of paragrah 7 of the Notification do not pose any problem but
clause-(iii) which was impugned creates a class of employees which is not
recognized under any statute relating to mining activities and therefore
there is no sanctity in the Notification so far as that part is concerned.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
We find that though the High Court referred to various statutes relating to
the mining activities, e.g. The Mining Act etc., it did not indicate any
reason as to why it was of the view that the authority issuing the
Notification lacked statutory power to issue the Notification. Though the
judgment runs to several pages, after noticing the rival submissions, the
High Court in a very cryptic manner, disposed of the writ petition coming
to the aforesaid view. It is not the number of pages in a judgment which is
relevance. It is on the other hand, the sufficiency of reasons indicated to
justify the conclusions. We may only add here that the paragraphs 28 and 29
of the judgment which are supposed to contain the conclusions are not only
confusing, but also make little sense. They to quote the immortal words of
Lord Summer in Rex v. Nat Bell Liquors Ltd., (1922) AC 128 "speak only with
the inscrutable face of a Sphink." It is "unspeaking order" as classically
described by Lord Cairns IC in Overseas of the Poor of Walsall Overseas v.
London & NWR Co., (1879) 4 AC 30. In the fitness of things, therefore, the
High Court should re-hear the writ petition and dispose of the same by a
reasoned order. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the Case. It goes without saying that the parties shall be
free to place all relevant aspects for consideration of the High Court when
the matter is taken up afresh. It appears that no interim orders were
passed by this Court. While the writ petition is being heard by the High
Court, the relief that was granted to the writ petitioners, would be
continued. By granting this protection, it shall not be construed as if we
have expressed by opinion on the merits of the case. It would be relevant
to note one further fact, as contended by the respondent that a
Notification containing similar stipulation as was impugned, has been
issued on 03.01.2002. The relevance and effect thereof, it goes without
saying, shall be considered by the High Court if brought to its notice with
appropriate pleadings. Since the dispute raised in the writ petition filed
in the year 1994, we request the High Court to dispose of the writ petition
as early as practicable.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.