http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: 32DHAGAMWAR NARSINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: S. S. GREWAL

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/10/1961

BENCH: SARKAR, A.K. BENCH: SARKAR, A.K. GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. WANCHOO, K.N. GUPTA, K.C. DAS

CITATION:  1962 AIR  422            1962 SCR  Supl. (1)  32

ACT:      Mine-Appeal-Chief Labour  Officer of  Company Termination of  service by company-Appeal to Chief Inspector of  Mines, if  maintainab1e-Chief Labour Officer, if Welfare Officer Mines Rules, 1955, rr. 72, 73 and 74.

HEADNOTE:      The appellant  was  appointed  as  the  Chief Labour  officer   by  the   Company  in  1947.  In December;  1955,   the  company   terminated   his services The  appellant, claiming  to be a Welfare officer,  preferred   an  appeal   to  the   Chief Inspector of  Mines under  r. 74(2)  of the  Mines Rules, 1955. ^      Held, that  the appellant  was not  a Welfare officer and  as such  could not  prefer an  appeal under r.  74 (2). The Welfare officer mentioned in r. 74  (2) is  the same officer as is mentioned in r.  72  (1)  which  rule  contemplates  a  Welfare officer appointed  in respect of one mine. But the appellant was  an officer  of several mines of the Company and not of one of such mines only.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION:  Civil  Appeal No. 548 of 1958.      Appeal by Special Leave from the judgment and order dated  March 27,  1957, of  the  Patna  High Court in Misc. Judicial Case No. 315 of 1956.      B.  Sen,   P.  W.   Sahasrabudhe  and  A.  C. Ratnaparkhi. for the Appellant      K. L.  Hathi and R. H. Dhebar, for Respondent No. 1.      N. C.  Chatterjee  and  S.  N.  Mukerji,  for Respondent No. 2.      1961. October  9. The  Judgment of  the Court

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

was delivered by      SARKAR,  J.-on   September  25,   1947,   the appellant was  appointed by  respondent No. 2, the Tata Iron  and Steel  Co., Ltd.  (hereafter called the Company)  as the  Chief Labour  officer of its collieries of  which it appears to have a few, and he worked 33 under the  Company till  the latter terminated his services by  a notice  dated December  5,1955.  On such discharge,  the appellant  , claiming to be a Welfare Officer  of a  mine within  r.74(2) of the Mines Rules  1955, which  rule we  shall later ser out, filed  an appeal  before respondent No.1, the Chief Inspector of Mines in India, under that rule questioning the  validity of his discharged by the Company.  The   Chief  Inspector   held  that  the appellant was  not a  Welfare Officer  within that rule and refused to entertain his appeal.      The appellant  then moved  the High  Court at Patna under  Art. 226  of the  Constitution for an appropriate writ  directing the chief inspector to decide the  appeal. The  High Court  dismissed the appellant’s petition  agreeing substantially  with the  view   taken  by  the  Chief  Inspector.  The appellant has  now appealed  to this Court against the judgment of the High Court.      The Mines  Rules; 1955  were framed under the Mines Act  1952, and  came into  force on  July 2, 1956.  We   are  principally  concerned  with  the proviso for.  74(2) but  this has  to be read with r.72. The relevant portions of these rules are set out below.           Rule 72.  (1) In  every mine wherein 500      or more persons are ordinarily employed there      shall  be  appointed  at  least  one  Welfare      Officer:-           Provided that  if the  number of persons      ordinarily employed exceeds 2000, there shall      be appointed  additional Welfare Officer on a      scale  of  one  for  every  2000  persons  or      fraction thereof-           (2) No person shall as a Welfare Officer      of a mine unless he possesses-           (Here   certain    qualifications    are specified)      Provided that  in case of a person already in service as a Welfare Officer in a mine the 34      above qualifications  may, with  the approval      of the Chief Inspector be relaxed.           (3)..........................           (4) A  written notice  of  ever  y  such      appointment.....  and  of  the  date  thereof      shall be  sent by the owner, agent or manager      t o  the Chief  Inspector within  7 days from      the          date           of           such      appointment..................           Rule 73. Duties of Welfare officers:           ........................................ .............           (Here certain duties are prescribed)           Rule                                 74. (1).....................................           (2)  The   condition  of  service  of  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

    Welfare Officer shall be the same as of other      members of  the staff of corresponding status      in the mine;           Provided that  in the  case of discharge      or dismissal, the Welfare Officer, shall have      a right  of appeal  to  the  Chief  Inspector      whose decision  thereon shall  be  final  and      binding upon  the owner,  agent or manager of      the mine as the case may be. The Chief  Inspector mentioned  in these  Rules is the Chief Inspector of Mines in India.      If the  appellant was  not a  Welfare officer within the  proviso to  r. 74(2)  as  the  company contends, then,  of course,  no appeal  by him lay under it. He would then clearly not be entitled to the writ  he  asked.  The  question  therefore  is whether the appellant was a Welfare Officer within the rule and is really one of construction of it.      We desire  now to  point out certain facts as to which  there is no controversy. First, both the Act and  the Rules  came into force long after the appellant  had  been  appointed  by  the  Company. Secondly no  relaxation of qualifications had been sought from or granted by the Chief Inspector with respect to 35 The appellant  under the  proviso to sub-r. (2) of r. 72  after the  Rules came in to force. Thirdly, no notice  as contemplated   in  r. 72(4) had been given concerning  the appellant.  It appears  that the Chief  Inspector found that the appellant "was performing  duties   akin  to   those  of  Welfare officers  contemplated  by  rule  73  and  he  was qualified  to  work  as  a  Welfare  officer."  We propose to  deal with  this appeal on the basis of these findings.      Dealing with  the contention  noticed by  the Chief Inspector  and the High Court that a Welfare Officer under  r. 74(2)  is one  who is  appointed after the  Rules came  into force, Mr. Sen for the appellant said  that a  person like  the appellant who  had  the  requisite  qualifications  and  was discharging the  duties prescribed  for a  Welfare officer from  before the  Rules came  into  force, would be a Welfare officer within them. He pointed out that  the proviso  to  sub-r.  (2)  of  r.  72 clearly  contemplated   the  continuance   of  the service of such a person as a Welfare officer with relaxation  where   such  was  necessary  and  was granted. He also said that sub-r. (4) of r. 72 was inapplicable to  Such a person because he had been appointed long  ago and  because the proviso to r. 72(2)  indicated  that  its  application  was  not intended.  We   do  not   think  it  necessary  to pronounce on this question in the present case. In our view,  the appeal  must fail even if Mr. Sen’s contention is right and that for another reason .      We observe  that the  Rules do not define the term "Welfare  officer". But we think it is beyond doubt-and  indeed   the  contrary   has  not  been contended that  the Welfare  officer mentioned  in the proviso  to r. 74(2) is the same officer as is mentioned in sub-r (1) of r. 72. Now it is, in our view, perfectly  plain that  the  Welfare  officer contemplated by r. 72(1) is such an officer of one

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

mine. The  rule says  that there shall be at least one  Welfare  officer  for  every  mine  employing between 500  and 2000  persons and  this makes any other view impossible 36 As we  understood Mr.  Sen, he  also accepted that the Welfare  officer contemplated is one appointed in respect  of one mine. Now, the appellant was on his own case, the Welfare Officer of several mines of the  Company and not of one of such mines only. Therefore, we  think that  he was  not  a  Welfare officer within  r. 72(1)  and hence not within the proviso to r. 74(2).      But Mr. Sen contends that the appellant might be  considered   as  having   been  severally  and independently appointed  the  Welfare  officer  of each of  the Company’s  several collieries  in his charge. We  think that would be an impossible view to take.  One appointment  cannot  be  treated  as several appointments and it is not in dispute that the appellant had only one appointment for all the Company’s collieries.      We  think  that  this  appeal  fails  and  we dismiss it with costs.                                  Appeal dismissed.