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.