http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: LABOUR INSPECTOR, CENTRAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE CHITTAPORE STONE QUARRYING CO. (P) LTD. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT05/04/1972

BENCH: PALEKAR, D.G. BENCH: PALEKAR, D.G. VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN

CITATION:  1972 AIR 1177            1973 SCR  (1)  83

ACT: Minimum  Wages Act 1948, Item 8 of Part No. 1  of  Schedule- Stone-breaking  and  stone  crushing,  meaning   of-Shahabad stone, quarrying of-Whether employment in stone breaking and stone crushing.

HEADNOTE: The  Minimum Wages Act 1948 was enacted to  provide  minimum rates  of  wages  in certain  employment  mentioned  in  the Schedule.   Item No. 8 of part No. 1 of the Schedule  refers to  employment  in  stone-breaking or  stone  crushing.   By notification under the Act minimum wages was fixed for those employed  in  stone breaking or stone crushing  in  Gulbarga District,  Mysore State.  The           appellant  Inspector was of the view that respondent No. 1 which was quarrying  a variety of stone called Shahabad stone in Gulbarga  District was  engaged  in the activity of stone  breaking  and  stone crushing and since respondent No. 1 was in breach of some of the  provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder  he adopted  proceedings to enforce the provisions in the  court of  the  Munsif Magistrate.  Respondent No. 1 filed  a  writ petition in the High Court for quashing the said proceedings contending  that its activity was not one of stone  breaking or stone crushing but of mining limestone slabs.   According to  him  after removing the layers of earth  and  the  thick layers  of limestone thin layers of limestone  were  brought out and these- were then cut tip into regular sizes and this did  not  amount to stone breaking or stone  crushing.   The High  Court  held  that  removing  Shahabad  stone  involved breaking  and crushing but on the view that what was  broken or  crushed was not ’stone’ but in the nature of  a  mineral quashed the proceedings.  In appeal by certificate, HELD : Per Vaidialingam and Palekar, JJ.  Stone breaking and stone crushing in relation to limestone is that activity  in which  non-stratified  limestone,  recognised  as  rock,  is broken or crushed into irregular fragments or sizes and then marketed  or  otherwise used.  The more valuable  and  rarer stratified limestone which is suitable for use as  dimension stone  is not the stone commercially exploited for  breaking and  crushing.  Hence the employment of  quarrying  Shahabad stone  is not the same as the scheduled employment of  stone breaking  or  stone crushing referred to in item  8  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

Schedule  to  the Minimum Wages Act.  The  High  Court  was, therefore right in quashing the proceedings. [87A-C] Madhya Pradesh Mineral Industry Association v. The  Regional Labour Commissioner Jabalpur and Ors., [1960] 3 S.C.R.  476, applied. Per Mathew, J. (dissenting) There is no distinction  between stone  obtained  by crushing or breaking  of  non-stratified rock  and that obtained by cutting stratified rock, for  the purpose  of  construing the word ’stone’ in item  No.  8  as stone obtained in both the cases is a piece of rock.[88H] In  Venkataramaniyas Law Lexicon and in the  Shorter  Oxford Dictionary  quarrying is defined to include  cutting.   When this  Court  in  the cases of Mohanlal  Devichand  Shah  and Madhya Pradesh Mineral Industry 84 Association said that employment in stone-breaking or stone- cushing  refer  to "quary operation "this court  was  fullyu alive to the process in-- volved in quarry operation [90F-H] It  must  therfore  be held  that  employment  in  quarrying operation for extraction, of Shahabad stone  is  employment within the ambit of item 8 of Part I of the Schedule. [91B] Madhya  Pradesh Mining Industry Association v. The  Regional Labour  Commissioner,  Jahalpur and Ors., [1960].  3  S.C.R. 476, Ray Limestone and Co. v. Sub-Divisional Officer Ranchi, A.I.R.  1968 Patna 39 and State of Maharashtra  v.  Mohanlal Devichand Shah, [1965] 3 S.C.R. 461, referred to.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION10N : Civil Appeal No.  40  of 1968. Appeal  from the judgment and order dated July 25,  1967  of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No. 1860 of 1965. R.   H. Dhebar, for the appellant. K.   Srinivasamurthy and Naunit Lal, for respondent No. 1. R.   B. Datar, for respondent No. 2. The Judgment of Vaidialingam and Palekar, JJ. was  delivered by Palekar, J. Mathew, J. delivered a dissenting opinion. Palekar,  J. This appeal by certificate granted by the  High Court  of Mysore raises an interesting point as  to  whether quarrying  of Shahabad stone is an activity which  could  be properly  described  as "stone breaking or  stone  crushing" mentioned in the Schedule to The Minimum Wages, Act, 1949. By  notification issued by the Appropriate Government  under the  Minimum  Wages Act, 1948 minimum wages were  fixed  for those  employed  in  stone breaking  or  stone  crushing  in Gulbarga  District. The appellant Inspector was of the  view that respondent no.  Chittapore Stone quarrying Company (Pvt.) Ltd., Chittapurwhich  was quarrying a  variety  of stone called Shahabad Stone in Chittapur, District Gulbarga, was  engaged  in the activity of stone  breaking  and  stone crushing, and since respondent no.  1 was in breach of  some of  the  provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948  and  the rules made thereunder he adopted proceedings to enforce  the provisions in the court of the Munsif Magistrate, Chittapur, respondent  no. 3. Respondent no.  1 thereupon filed a  writ petition  for  quashing the proceedings (Writ  Petition  No. 1860 of 1965) in the Mysore High Court alleging, inter alia, that  the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act did not  apply to the particular activity in which it was engaged  because, in it_submission, the activity was not one of stone breaking or stone-crushing 85 but of mining limsestone slabs. The High Court held that the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

process  of  removing Shahabad stone involved  breaking  and crushing but it was also of the view that what was broken or crushed  was not really ’stone’ but a substance  which  very nearly  approximated to a mineral.  In that view it  quashed the proceedings before the Munsif Magistrate. The  activity  in  which  respondent no.  1  is  engaged  is described as follows :               "The earth which varies in depth from place to               place over the limestone layers is removed  by               manual labour.  This work of removing the soil               is  known as earth-work.  The  thin  limestone               layers’from which the flooring stones are  cut               into  regular  sizes and which  is  the,  main               object  of  mining  by us  are  reached  after               removing  some thick layer of  limestone  over               these   thin  layers.   The  removal  of   the               overburden of earth and thick layers of lime--               stone  is incidental to the mining  operations               conducted  by  us. The main operation  of  our               mining  is  to bare open the  thin  layers  of               limestone and cut them into regular sizes.  It               is  submitted that no stone breaking or  stone               crushing  operations  are carried  on  in  our               mines." The question is whether the operation described above can be appropriately described as stone breaking or stone crushing. The object of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, as is well-known, is to provide minimum rates of wages in certain employments. Section   2(g)   defines  "scheduled  employment"   as   "an employment  specified  in the Schedule, or  any  process  or branch  of  work  forming part  of  such  employment".   The Schedule  has two parts and item no. 8 in part no. 1  refers to employment in stone breaking or stone crushing.  The Act, therefore,  provides that where the  appropriate  Government fixes  by notification a minimum wage to be paid  to,  those who  are  employed on stonebreaking  or  stone-crushing  the employees  will have to be paid the minimum wage  so  fixed. It  was the appellant’s case that such a notification is  in operation in Gulbarga District of Mysore State and since the respondent  no.  1  was engaged in the  activity  of  stone- breaking  and  stone-crushing  in which  workers  have  been employed the respondent was liable to pay minimum wages,  as fixed. There  is no definition of stone-breaking or  stone-crushing in the Act.  But we know what that activity is in the common parlance  of the business and commercial world.  It  appears to us that it will be a futile exercise in semantice to  try to  explore what the content of a stone is-whether it  is  a mineral or not, or 86 whether it is so called when it is obtained in open quarries or subterranean mines or whether breaking or crushing  would also  include cutting in dimensional forms.  In  the  common acceptance  of  the business. and commercial  world,  stone- breaking  and  stone crushing is a  commercial  activity  in which  stone, in the sense of common rock, is, to  fragments by mechanical means such fragments being marked or used  for profit.  In this connection reference may be made to  Madhya Pradesh Mineral Industry Association v. The Regional  Labour Commissioner  Jabalpur  and others(1) and to  the  following observations therein at page 485.               "The  word "stone" as popularly understood  in               ordinary  parlance  particularly  when  it  is               coupled with the word "breaking" or "crushing"               would  exclude  manganese.  When we  speak  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

             stone-breaking  or stone-crushing normally  we               refer  to  stone  in the sense of  "  piece  of               rock,"  and  that  would  exclude   manganese.               Employment in stone-breaking or stone-crushing               in   ’this   sense  would  refer   to   quarry               operation,,." Information  extracted  from  the  Encyclopaedia  Britannica under  the words "stone" and "quarrying", shows that  common rock  which  is  commercially exploited  falls  broadly  two categories,  one  igneous,  like  granite,  and  the   other sedimentary,   like  limestone.   These  rocks   undergo   a qualitative  change under tremendous mountain pressures  and then they are known as metamorphic. limestone, for  example, becomes marble. All the above categories of rocks are generally found in two varieties-stratified and nonstratified.  When rock is  found in  thin  layers  one  over  the  other,  it  is  known   as stratified.    Where   it   is   not   so   found,   it   is non--stratified.   Commercial  exploitation  of  these   two varieties is distinct.  Non-stratified rock, which is  found in abundance in quarries or otherwise, yields to  profitable exploitation by breaking and crushing into smaller irregular fragments.  The rarer stratified stone is much more valuable as  it  is found in layers which are skillfully  removed  to give  large dimensional slabs.  In the first case there.  is generally  blasting  with the help of  explosives.   In  the second  blasting is avoided as it will cause damage  to  the layers.   The end product in both is used. for  construction mostly  in  buildings and roads.  In’ limestone  as  in  all stone, suitable stratified layers are commercially exploited for  dimensional quarrying by a very skillful process.   The product  namely  the slab after being polished is  used  for flooring,  facing and the like. Quarrying of Shahabad  stone with which we are concerned is of this type. The other  kind of  limestone, that is to say. non-stratified  limestone  is suitable for being broken and crushed into smaller fragments and it has its commercial use in building construction. (1)  [1960] 3 S.C.R. 476. 87 manufacture of cement and the like Store-breaking and stone- crushing  in  relation  to  limestone  is,  therefore,  that activity  in which non-stratified limestone,  recognised  as rock,  is  broken  or crushed into  irregular  fragments  or sizes-and  then  marketed  or  otherwise  used.   The   more valuable and rarer’ stratified limestone ,which is  suitable for  use  as dimension stone is not the  stone  commercially exploited  for breaking and crushing.  Hence the  employment of quarrying Shahabad stone is not the same as the scheduled employment  of stone breaking or stone crushing referred  to in  item  8  of  the Schedule  to  the  Minimum  Wages  Act. Consequently  the minimum wages fixed for the employment  of stone-breaking  and  stone-crushing will not  apply  to  the operation  of  quarrying Shahabad stone which  is  the  main activity of respondent no. 1. The High Court was, therefore, right  in quashing the proceedings under the  Minimum  Wages Act  and the appeal must be dismissed.  The appellant  shall pay the costs of respondent no. 1. Mathew  ,  J.  The facts have already been  stated.  It  is, therefore, unnecessary to rehearse them. The question for consideration is whether Shahabad stone  is stone’  within the meaning of that expression in item No.  8 in  part  1  of  the  schedule  and  whether  employment  in quarrying Shahabad stone is "employment in stone-breaking or stone-crushing" within the meaning of the said item No. 8. In the affidavit in support of the writ petition, the nature

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

of  the  work  involved  in  quarrying  Shahabad  stone   is described  as follows :-                "The  earth which varies in depth from  place               to place over the limestone layers is  removed               by manual labour ... The thin limestone layers               from  which the flooring stones are  cut  into               regular sizes and which is the main object  of               mining by us, are reached after removing  some               thick  layers  of limestone  over  these  thin               layers.   The  removal of  the  overburden  of               earth   and  thick  layers  of  limestone   is               incidental to the mining operations  conducted               by us.  The main operation of our mining is to               bare open the thin layers of limestone and  to               cut them into regular sizes. . . . " The High Court was of the view that the word ’stone’  occur- ring  in  item  No. 8 has to be understood  as  a  piece  of ordinary rock and that Shahabad stone cannot be regarded  as the  ordinary  rock  of  the  district  but  an  exceptional Substance with exceptional quality About it and,  therefore, it  is not ’stone’ within the meaning of item No. 8  of  the schedule. 88 In  Madhya  Pradesh  Mining  Industry  Association  v.   The Regional  Labour Commissioner, Jabalpur and  Others(1)  this court said:               "In a chemical or geological sense stones  may               include  ’manganese  and that is  one  of  the               meanings  given  to the word  in  the  Shorter               Oxford  Dictionary.   On the other  hand,  the               word   ’stone’  as  popularly  understood   in               ordinary  parlance  particularly  when  it  is               coupled with the word "breaking" or "crushing"               would  exclude  manganese.  When we  speak  of               stone-breaking  or stone-crushing normally  we               refer to stone in the sense of ’piece of rock’               and that would exclude manganese.   Employment               in  stone-breaking or stone-crushing  in  this               sense would refer to quarry operations. . " Therefore  the word ’stone’ in item No. 8 must be  taken  as used  in the sense of a piece of rock; the question then  is whether  Shababad  stone is ’stone’ in that  sense  for  the purpose  of  item  No.  8. Shahabad  stone  is  nothing  but limestone.   The  companies which have  been  quarrying  and selling  these  limestone  slabs  manufacture  4   different varieties which are used as building material for  flooring, roofing, etc. (see B. Rama Rao, Mineral Resources of  Bidar, Gulbarga and Raichur Districts, published in Bulletin No. 23 of Department of Mines and Geology, Bangalore, 1964, v. 51). Rocks are of three kinds- igneous, sedimentary and  metamor- phic.   Limestone  is a principal kind of  sedimentary  rock (see  Encyclopaedia  Britannica,  Vol.  10,  pp.,  163-165). ’Stone’ for the purpose of item No. 8 will include limestone               "Stone, as the word is most generally used, is               a  piece of rock or of the solid crust of  the               earth,   and  hence  of  natural  origin   and               generally  of  inorganic  corn  position  ....               Kinds of stones or rocks are distinguished  by               prefixes e.g., limestone, sandstone,. ..."               (See, Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 21 p.436. But  it  is  said  that rocks are  generally  found  in  two varietiesstratified  and  non-stratified that when  rock  is found  in , thin layers one over the other, it is  known  as stratified and  where  it  is not so  found’  it  is  non-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

stratified  It is also  said that non-stratified rock  which is  found in abundance in quarries or otherwise,  yields  to profitable  exploitation  by  breaking  and  crushing   into smaller  irregular  fragments and that stratified  stone  is much  more  valuable  as it is found  in  layers  which  are skilfully  removed  to give large dimensional slabs.   I  am unable  to  see any distinction between  stone  obtained  by crushing or breaking of non-stratified rock and (1)   [1960] 3 S.C.R. 476 at p. 485. 89 that obtained by cutting stratified rock, for the purpose of constructing  the  word  ’stone’  in item  No.  8  as  stone obtained in both the cases is a piece of rock. In Madhya Pradesh Mining Industry Association v. The  Regio- nal  Labour Commissioner, Jabalpur(1), the mining  operation was  for  extraction  of  manganese  ore  and  the   process consisted of removal of over-burden, breaking of big mineral stones  like boulder to get at manganese.  On  these  facts, the   Court  held  that  stone-breaking  or   crushing   was incidental  to  the  extraction  of  manganese.   The  Court further said that the operation of stone-breaking or  stone- crushing referred to in item No. 8 of part I of the schedule must  refer to the main operation in the process and not  to the incidental operation.  The question whether a particular operation  is  main  or  incidental,  therefore,  arose  for consideration in respect of the mining operation itself.  It is obvious that the paragraph in the affidavit in support of the  writ  petition  which has already  been  extracted  was inserted  with an eye to bring the case within the ambit  of this  ruling.  But here, the limestone itself  is  extracted for  the  purpose  of being used as  building  material  for flooring and roofing.  The operation of quarrying limestone, therefore, is not an incidental purpose but the main purpose itself. In Ray Limestone and Co. & another v. Sub-Divisional Officer Ranchi(2), the Court was concerned with the question whether quarrying  operation for extracting limestone would  involve employment  in stone-breaking and stone-crushing within  the meaning  of  item  8.  The  Court  held  that  quarrying  of limestone involved stone-breaking or stone-crushing and that employment  in  the quarry would attract item No. 8  of  the schedule. But counsel for the 1st respondent contended that  quarrying operation  in extracting limestone does not  involve  stone- breaking  or  stone-crushing.   He  contended  that  only  a restricted  meaning  can  be  given  to  the  world  "stone- breaking",  that breaking a piece according to size  from  a large  block of rock by a sharp weapon would not be  "stone- breaking" or "stone-crushing", and that it is only when rock is  blown up by a dynamite. or broken by a sledge hammer  or other  blunt  instrument that the process can  be  called  " stone-breaking"  or "stone-crushing".  In other  words,  the contention was, if rock is broken to pieces by cutting  with a  sharp weapon, that wouldnot involve  "stone-breaking"  or "stone-crushing".   This,  I think, is  too  metaphysical  a distinction to be imported in the construction of item 8  of the  schedule.  Looking at the object of the Act, I  do  not think that the distinction between cutting rock into  pieces by a sharp instrument and breaking it into (1) [1960] 3 S.C.R. 476. (2) A.I.R. 1968 Patna 39. 8Sup.CI/72 90 pieces  by an instrument like a hammer, though fine  from  a meti. culous linguistic stand-point would be rational  from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

the  purposive  approach.  Both ’processes  involve  "stone- breaking".  I agree with the High Court when it said               "...... we do not see why stripping open  thin               layers of Shahabad, stone and cutting them  to               regular sizes, which are the main  operations,               should  not be regarded as stone-breaking  or,               stone-crushing  in a quarry so as to bring  it               within  the ambit of item 8 in  the  schedule.               Consequently,  we  are unable  to  accept  the               contention  of, Mr. Breenivasa Murty that  no,               stone-breaking or stonecrushing operations are               involved  in quarrying of Shahabad  stones  or               that  such operations are incidental  and  not               the main operations. . . " In State of Maharashtra v. Mohanlal Devichand Shah(1)  Sikri J.  as  he  then was, speaking for the  Court,  quoted  with approval  the following passage from Madhya Pradesh  Mineral Industry  .Association v. The Regional Labour  Commissioner, Jabalpur(2).               "When  we  speak of stone-breaking  or  stone-               crushing  normally  we refer to stone  in  the               sense  of  "piece  of  rock’  and  that  would               exclude   manganese.   Employment  in   stone-               breaking or stone-crushing in this sense would               refer to quarry operations."               and said that :               "This  Court  thus read Entry 8  (item  8)  to               refer to quarry operations. . ." "Quarry"  is defined in Venkataramaiya’s Law  Lexicon,  Vol. IT, 1971 Ed., p. 1322, as follows :--                "As a noun the term ’quarry’ has been defined               as  the  spot where rock  is  quarried....  an               excavation or other place from which stone  is               taken by cutting, blasting or the like . . .It               is  open  excavation  usually  for   obtaining               building stone, slate or limestone. . . ." In  Shorter OxfordEnglish Dictionary, 3rd edition, p.  1636, the meaning of ’quary     is given as hereunder:-- "An  excavation  from  which stone for  building,  etc.,  is obtained by cutting, blasting or the like". When  this Court said that employment in  stone-breaking  or stone-crushing would refer to "quarry operation" this  Court was  fully  alive  to  the  process  involved  in  quarrying operation.  That (1) [1965]3 S.C.R. 461, at p. 465-6. (2) [1960] 3 S.C.R. 476. 91 the  operation  involves  the  extraction  of  limestone  by cutting also is clear from the definition of quarry. I  therefore,  come  to the conclusion  that  employment  in quarrying  operation  for extraction of  Shahabad  stone  is employment  within  the  ambit of item 8 of Part  I  of  the Schedule.   I  would allow the appeal and dismiss  the  writ petition without any order as to costs.                            ORDER In accordance with the judgment of the majority, the  appeal is  dismissed.   The  appellant  shall  pay  the  costs   of respondent No. 1. G.C.                               Appeal dismissed. 92