State of Bihar v. S. K. Roy

Rlllllllswami, J. The question of law presented for detennina- C tion 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 Flllld and Bonus Schemes Act, 1948 (Act 46 of 1948), hereinafter ~lied the •Act'. The respondent was prosecuted under para 70 of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme (hereinafter caUed the 'Scheme') D for violation of els. (a), (d) and (f) of paragraph 70 read with para­ graphs 33A, 38, 42 and 69A of the Scheme. An Inspector ap· pointed under the Act filed a complaint against the respondent alleging that he was the owner of the Bhowra Coke Plant and that he !rad contravened certain provisions of the Scheme. It was alleged that the respondent had failed to pay the contribution for the Provident Fund, both employer's and employees' from April, 1960 E to November, 1960 and had failed to submit returns in Fonn "H" with corresponding declaration in Form "A" and the statement in Ponn •p• as provided under the Regulations. The respondent was held ilJilty by the trying Magistrate and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and, in default, to undergo 3 months' simple im­ prisonment under paragraph 70(a). The respondent went in appeal to the Sessions Judge, who dismissed the appeal and confinned the F sentence imposed by the Magistrate. The respondent filed a Revi­ sion Application in the Patna High Court which allowed the Revi­ sion Application and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the respondent holding that the Coke Plant owned by the res­ pondent 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 G the meaning of the Act and the Scheme. The facts found or admitted in this case are: (I) 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 subse- H quently sold to the Bhowra Keo~ Colliuicll Limited, (3) The respondMt is the owner of the Coke Plant and the lessee of the i ' , _,,,, •. ;!\·. :BtRAR v. ~. X. ROY (Ru..truis1vnni£, .J.) .\ 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 B 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 exca­ vate any coal by carryjrg on any operation for the purpose of obtaining coal, (6) The coke Plant is a bye-product coke plant in which hard coke as well as some other bye-products are manufac- " tured. The question to be considered is whether, in this stale 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 olause (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. (I) 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 cons­ trued with reference to the definition of the word "owner" in ol. (I) of s. 2 of Act 35 of 1952, which repealed the earlier Act and re-enacted it (See also the decision of this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. M.P. Singh etc.(').) 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 Jessee 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 ope· ration 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 dress­ ing of minerals;" As a matter of construction it must be held that all works, machin· erj, 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 R.C. 569. 262 SUPRl;ME COliRT R!PORT8 [ l 966J BUPP. S.C.R. the definition only when they belong to the coal mine. In other A 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 ane 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 B mine" as given in the first part of cl. (bl 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 pur­ pose of obta!ning coal. Suppose, for example, in a coal field area, the lessee from the Government is working a mine, but the tram­ ways and sidings have been set up by a railway company only for C 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 express!on "belonging to a coal mine" is the controlling expression governing all aspects of the activities of D 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 "ooal mine" only if they appertain to the coal mine, that is to say. if they arc 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" E 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: "12l for clause (b), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:- (bl '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 include~ Ii) all borings and bore holes; (ii) all shafts. in or adjacent to and belong to a coal ;t-- mine, whether in the course of being sunk or not; (iii) all levels and inclined planes in the course of be- ing driven; H •• l BIHAR v. s. K. ROY (Ramaswami, J.) 263 (v) all conveyors or aerial rope-ways provided for bringing into or removal from a coal mine of coal or other articles or for the removal of refuse therefrom; (vi) all adits, levels, planes, machinery, works, rail­ ways, 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 manage­ ment; • • • • • • (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 deposit­ ing 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; • • • • I ' • • (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 F 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 G 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 B 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 amend­ ing Act (Act 45 of 1965) was not meant to bring about a change L/S5CI-19 23'. 8U1'.IUl:lfE OOUl\T UPOl\T8 (1966) SUPP. l.C.11. of law in this respect but was meant to fix a proper interpretation A upon the earlier Act. It is a well-recognised principle in dcalina 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.'. Betts(').) B 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 Coun has rightly acquitted the respondent of the ol'fences alleged ai\ainst him under the Scheme. We a.ccordiogly dismi" this appe~I. C Apptal dismisseil. (') ( 1928] A.C. t'3 at p. Uil. •. T·