http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: STATE OF BIHAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: S. K. ROY

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/04/1966

BENCH:

ACT: Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act, 1948,  Sec. 2(c)-"Employer"-meaning of-by reference to the meaning of an it  "owner", of a "coal mine"--as defined in Sec.  2,  Mines Act, 1952.

HEADNOTE: The respondent owned a coke plant which originally  belonged to  a group of collieries but was later transferred to  him. It was situated adjacent to a coal mine on the surface  land which formed part of the coal fields beneath which the  coal mine  was worked.  The respondent did not mine  or  excavate coal  himself nor carry on any operation for the purpose  of obtaining  coal.  His coke plant was a bye-product Plant  in which  hard  coke  as well as some  other  byeproducts  were manufactured. The  respondent  was prosecuted under para 70  of  the  Coal Mines  Provident  Fund Scheme issued under  the  Coal  Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act, 1948 (Act 46 of  1948) on  a  complaint  that as an owner of a  coal  mine  and  an employer within the meaning of the Scheme, he had failed  to pay  certain contributions to the Provident Fund.   Although he was convicted by the trying Magistrate and his appeal  to the  Sessions  Judge  dismissed, the High  Court  allowed  a Revision Application and set aside the conviction. The  question for consideration in the appeal to this  Court was  whether  the  respondent was an owner of  a  coal  mine within  the  meaning  of s. 2 of the  Mines  Act,  1952  and therefore  an employer as defined by Section 2(e) of Act  46 of 1948.  The expression "coal mine" in Section 2(b) of  the Mines  Act, 1952 means "any excavation where  any  operation for  the purpose of obtaining coal has been 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 HELD: The  respondent was not the owner of a coal mine within  the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Mines Act, 1952 and the  High Court had rightly acquitted him. [264 C]. The expression "belonging to a coal mine" is the controlling expression  governing all aspects of the activities  of  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 "coal mine" only if they appertain to the coal mine, that is to. say, if they  are under the. same ownership.  In order to carry  out the  legislative  intention  it is  therefore  necessary  to substitute the conjunction "and" for the Conjunction "or" in the definition of a "coal mine" in s. 2(b) of the Act.  [262

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

D-E]. Section  2(b)  of the Coal Mines Provident  Fund  and  Bonus Schemes (Amendment) Act, 1965 and Ormond Investment Co.  Li- mited v. Betts: 1928 A.C. 143, 156; referred to. 260

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 158  of 1965. Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 15,  1965 of  the  Bihar High Court in Criminal Revision No.  1326  of 1963. R.  H. Dhebar, V. D. Mahajan and B. R. G. K. Achar, for  the appellant. N. C. Chatterjee, Suprakash Bannerjee and Sukumar Ghose, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami,  J. The question of law presented for  determina- 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 Fund and Bonus Schemes Act, 1948 (Act 46 of 1948), hereinafter called the ’Act’. The  respondent  was prosecuted under para 70  of  the  Coal Mines   Provident  Fund  Scheme  (hereinafter   called   the ’Scheme’)  ’for  violation  of  cls. (a),  (d)  and  (f)  of paragraph 70 read with paragraphs 33A, 38, 42 and 69A of the Scheme.   An  Inspector  appointed under  the  Act  filed  a complaint  against the respondent alleging that he  was  the owner  of the Bhowra Coke Plant and that he had  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  to November, 1960 and had failed to submit returns  in Form "H" with corresponding declaration in Form "A" and  the statement  in  Form ’P’ as provided under  the  Regulations. The respondent was held guilty by the trying Magistrate  and was sentenced to pay a fine- of Rs. 500 and, in default,  to undergo 3 months’ simple imprisonment under paragraph 70(a). The  respondent  went in appeal to the Sessions  Judge,  who dismissed  the appeal and confirmed the sentence imposed  by the Magistrate.  The respondent filed a Revision Application in   the  Patna  High  Court  which  allowed  the   Revision Application  and  set  aside  the  conviction  and  sentence imposed on the respondent holding that the Coke Plant  owned by the respondent 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 the meaning of the  Act  and  the Scheme. The facts found or admitted in this case are: (1) 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 subsequently  sold  to  the Bhowra  Kankanee Collieries Limited, (3) The  respondent  is the owner of the Coke Plant and the lessee of the 261 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

is  not only adjacent to the coal mine but is also  situated on  the  surface land, which forms part 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 excavate  any  coal  by carrying 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 manufactured. The  question to be considered is whether, in this state  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 clause (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. (1) 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 construed with reference to the definition of the word "owner" in cl. (1) of s. 2 of Act 35 of 1952, which repealed the earlier Act and reenacted  it (See  also  the  decision of this Court in  State  of  Uttar Pradesh v. M.P. Singh etc.(1).) 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 lessee 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  operation  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  dressing  of               minerals-." As a matter of construction it must be held that all  works, machinery,  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,S.C. 569. 262 the  definition only when they belong to the coal mine.   In other  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  and  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 mine" as given  in  the first  part of cl. (b) 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 purpose of obtaining coal.  Suppose, for example, in a  coal field  area,  the lessee from the Government  is  working  a mine,  but  the tramways and sidings have been set up  by  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

railway  company only for 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   expression "belonging  to  a coal mine" is the  controlling  expression governing  all  aspects of the activities of 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 "coal  mine"  only  if  they appertain  to  the coal mine, that is to say,  if  they  are 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"  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:               "(2)  for  clause (b),  the  following  clause               shall be substituted, namely:               (b)   ’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 includes               (i)   all borings and bore holes-,               (ii)  all shafts, in or adjacent to and belong               to a coal mine, whether in the course of being               sunk or not;                (iii)  all levels and inclined planes in  the               course of being driven:                                    263               (v)   all   conveyors  or   aerial   rope-ways               provided  for bringing into or removal from  a               coal mine of coil or other articles or for the               removal of refuse there from;               (vi)all  adits,  levels,  planes,   machinery,               works,  railways, 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 management;               (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               depositing  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;               (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  the  word "coal mine"  includes  all  adits,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

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  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 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 amending Act (Act 45 of 1965) was not meant to bring about a change Sup5CI-19 264  of  law  in  this respect but was meant  to  fix  a  proper interpretation  upon  the  earlier  Act.   It  is  a   well- recognised principle in dealing with matters of construction that  subsequent legislation may be looked at in orderer  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.,v. Betts(1). 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 Court has  rightly  acquitted  the respondent  of  the offence alleged against  him  under  the Scheme.  We accordingly dismiss this appeal. Appeal dismissed. [1928] A.C. 143 at p. 166. 265