Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 8890 of 1997
Appeal (civil) 8891 of 1997
PETITIONER:
M/S DAMODAR MANGALJI & CO.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/02/2001
BENCH:
S.R.Babu, S.N.Phukan
JUDGMENT:
L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J
RAJENDRA BABU, 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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.