http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: M/S.  SERAJUDDIN & CO.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THEIR WORKMEN

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/03/1962

BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. WANCHOO, K.N.

CITATION:  1966 AIR  921            1962 SCR  Supl. (3) 934  CITATOR INFO :  E          1966 SC 925  (10)

ACT: Industrial  Dispute-Reference by  State  Goverment-Validity- "Appropriate Government"-Industrial dispute", in relation to mine-Construction  of-"Mine"-Definition-Industrial  Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), ss. 2(a), 2(a)(i), 2(j),  2(k)-Mines Act, 1952 (35 of 1952), ss. 2(j), 2(k), 2(h).

HEADNOTE: A dispute covering claims made by the employees was referred for adjudication to the tribunal by the State Government of. West  Bengal.  The appellant raised a preliminary  objection against  the validity of the reference and urged that  under s. 2(a) the appropriate Government which could make a  valid reference in relation to the present dispute was the Central Government and not the Government of West Bengal and so, the reference was unauthorised and incompetent and the  Tribunal bad  no  jurisdiction to deal with it.  The  Tribunal  over- ruled this objection and the  case was set down for  hearing on   the  merits.   Against  this  finding,  the   appellant preferred  the present appeal by special leave and the  only point  raised was that the head office of the  appellant  at Calcutta being an integral part of the mine, any  industrial dispute  between  the said office and its  employees  is  an industrial dispute-concerning a mine under s. 2(a)(i) and so the  appropriate Government must be the  Central  Government and not the State Government.  The question for decision was whether the present dispute can be said to be an  industrial dispute  concerning  a mine.  It was argued  that  the  word "industry"  is wide enough to include the Head Office  of  a mining company though, it may be situated away from the  935 place  where the mining operations are actually  carried  on and  it is in the light of the said definition of  the  word "industry" contained in s. 2(j) that the words "in  relation to a mine" must be construed. Held, that in construing the words-,,an industrial  dispute" in  relation to a mine, it must first be determined  what  a mine  means  and it must be done without  reference  to  the broad definition of industry prescribed by s. 2 j).  In  the absence  of  a  definition of the word "mine"  in  the(  Act

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

itself, what has to be taken into account is the  dictionary meaning  of the word "mine" or as is contained in the  Mines Act and judged in that light, there can be no difficulty  in holding  that  an industrial dispute between  the  employees engaged  in the Head Office at Calcutta and the employer  is not  an  industrial  dispute concerning a  mine.   The  Head Office is not a mine and so, an industrial dispute raised by the  employees  engaged.  in  the  head  office  is  not  an industrial dispute concerning a mine. The rights conferred on the lessee under a mining lease  can have  no direct bearing on the construction of s.  2(a)  and therefore,  the  tribunal rightly. held,  that  the  present dispute between the appellant and its employees at its  Head Office at Calcutta is not a dispute in relation to a mine. Held, further that all industrial disputes which are outside s. 2(a)(i) are _the concern of the State Government under s. 2(a)(ii);  in  other  words, the general  rule  is  that  an industrial  dispute  arising  between  a  employer  and  his employees  would be referred for adjudication by  the  State Government except in cases falling under s. 2(a) (i); and so it  is  the extent of one of the exception mentioned  in  s. 2(a)(i)  that has to be determined in the present case,  and in  determining the extent of the said exception,  it  would not  be  irrelevant  to  bear  in  mind  the  scope  of  the provisions  of the Mines Act itself.  That is why  the  fact that an office of a mine is outside the definition of a mine is of some assistance in interpreting the word "mine"  under s.  2(a)(1) and therefore, the tribunal rightly came to  the conclusion  that  in the present case the reference  by  the State Government of West Bengal was valid.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 355 of 1961. Appeal by special leave from the order No. 28 dated  January 17, 1961, of the fourth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal  in Case No. VIII-71. 936 P.K. Sanyal and D. N. Mukherjee, for the appellants. Janardan Sharma, for the respondents. 1962.   March, 19.  The Judgment of the Court was  delivered by GAJENDREGADKAR,  J.-This  appeal by special leave  raises  a very  short  question about the construction of  a  part  of section  2(a)  of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act  (I  4  of 1947)(hereinafter called the Act).  That question arises  in this  way.  On the 14th March, 1960, the Government of  West Bengal  referred for adjudication to the  Fourth  Industrial Tribunal  six  items of dispute between four  employers  and their  respective employees.  Amongst the employers was  the appellant  M/s.   Serajuddin &  Co.,p-16,  Bentinck  Street, Calcutta-1, and the items of dispute covered claims made  by the employees for grade and scale, Dearness Allowance, House rent,  leave and holidays, Provident Fund and Gratuity,  and condition  of  service.   It appears that  all  the  workmen employed  in  the  three  other  industrial  concerns  filed affidavits  before the Tribunal intimating to it  that  they did  not want to proceed with the case because  the  dispute between  them  and  their  respective  employers  had   been settled.  That is how the only dispute which was left before the  Tribunal for its adjudication was the  dispute  between the appellant and its workmen. On  behalf  of the appellant, a  preliminary  objection  was raised  against the validity of the, reference  itself.   It

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

was  urged  that under s.2(a),  the  appropriate  Government which  could  make  a valid reference  in  relation  to  the present   dispute  between  the  parties  was  the   Central Government  and not the State Govt. of West Bengal  and  so, the reference made by the latter Government was unauthorised and   incompetent  and  the  Tribunal  bad,   therefore   no jurisdiction to deal with it.This                             937 objection  has been over-ruled by the Tribunal and the  case has been set down for hearing on the merits.  It is  against this  finding that the appellant has come to this  Court  by special leave and so the only point which has been raised by Mr.  Sanyal  on behalf of the appellant is that  the  appro- priate  Government under s. 2(a) ’is the Central  Government and not the State Government of West Bengal. Before dealing with this point, it is necessary to refer  to the relevant and material facts in regard to the work  which is carried on by the workmen at the appellant’s office.  The appellant’s office at Calcutta generally manages the work of the  mines  and looks after the sale of its  mine  products. The mining operations of the appellant are, however, carried on  the State of Orissa under a lease executed in favour  of the appellant by the said State.  These operations relate to the  work  of chromite and manganese.  The function  of  the Calcutta  office is merely to exercise general control  over the  mining  operations  and  look after  the  sale  of  the minerals  produced in the said mines.  It appears  that  the staff  engaged  in  the  Head  Office  at  Calcutta  can  be transferred  to  the office in Orissa where  the  mines  are situated.  For the purpose of exercising direct  supervisory control  over the mining operations, the  appellant  employs staff  at the site of the mines.  Mr. Sanyal  contends  that the  Head  Office  of the appellant  at  Calcutta  being  an integral  part of the mine, any industrial  dispute  between the  said Office and its employees is an industrial  dispute concerning  a mine under s. 2(a)(i), and so the  appropriate Government must be the Central Government and not the  State Government. Section 2(a) (i) provides, inter aila, that unless there  is anything  repugnant in the subject or context,"  appropriate Government"  means  in  relation to  an  industrial  dispute concerning a mine the 938 Central  Government.   The  question which  arises  for  our decision is whether the present dispute can he mid to be  an industrial   dispute  concerning  a’  mine.   Mr.   Sanyal’s Argument  is  that  the word "industry" is  wide  enough  to include the Head Office of a mining company, though it.  may be, situated away from the place where the mining operations are actually carried on; and it is in the light of the  said definition  of  the word.  "industry" contained in  a.  2(j) that the words ",in relation, to a mine" must be  construed. An  "industrial dispute" under s. 2(k) means inter alia  any dispute  between  employers and workmen and  the  expression "workman’  means any person employed in any industry  to  do any  skilled  or unskilled work of. the  type  described  by section  2 (a).  Therefore, the words ,,industrial  dispute" used in a. 2 a)(i) necessarily take us to the definition  of the word ,industry" in s. 2(j) because an industrial dispute takes us to the definition of the workman and the definition of   a   workman  inevitably  brings   in   the   definition of  .,industry" in a. 2(j).  That is how in  construing  the clause  "an industrial dispute concerning a mine" we  cannot avoid brining in the wide definition of the word  "industry" in a. 2 (j) and in the light of the said definition, a  mine

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

must mean the industry of mining and that would include  the Head  Office  which exercises general supervision  over  the mining operations of a company though it may be situated far away   from  the  place’  where  the  raid  operations   are conducted.  That, in brief, is the argument urged in support of the appeal. on  the  other  hand,  if  we  look  at  the  definition  in s.2(a)(i), it would be noticed that where it was intended to refer  to an industry as such, the definition uses the  word industry  as for instance, it refers to  industrial  dispute concerning only such controlled industry as may be specified in  this  behalf  by  the  Central  Government,  whereas  in referring to the                             939 dispute in regard to a mine the definition does not refer to an  industrial dispute concerning a mining industry  but  it merely says an industrial dispute concerning a mine.  In the context,  a  mine  is referred to just as a  banking  or  an insurance company is referred to or an oil-field or a  major port  is referred.  Therefore, in construing the words  ",an industrial  dispute"  in relation to a mine, we  must  first deter. mine what a mine means and ’this must be done without reference to the broad definition of industry prescribed  by section 2(j). In the absence of any definition of the word ",mine" in. the Act,  we  may take into account the  dictionary  meaning  as excavation  in earth for metal, coal, salt etc.   The  mines Act (’I 5 of 1952) also contains a definition of "’mine"  in s.  2(j).   The said definition shows, inter alia,  that,  a "mine"  means  any excavation where any  operation  for  the purpose  of searching for or obtaining minerals has been  or is being carried on.  It. is significant that the definition of  mine under s.2(j) excludes an office of a mine which  is separately  defined  by s.2(k) as meaning an office  at  the surface of the mine concerned so that there is no doubt that the  office  of the mine, though it may be situated  at  the surface of the mine itself, is not within the definition  of mine.   This position is further clarified when we  consider the  definition  of the person employed in a mine  which  is prescribed by s. 2(h).  A person is said to be employed in a mine who works under appointment by or with the knowledge of the  manager,  whether  for  wages or  not,  in  any  mining operation,  or  in  cleaning  or  oiling  any  part  of  any machinery used in or about the mine, or in any other kind of work  whatsoever  incidental to, or connected  with,  mining operations.  It is obvious that the persons employed in  the Head Office wherever it may be situated cannot be said to do the   mining  operation  within  the  first  part   of   the definition.   In  our opinion, they cannot be,  said  to  be ordinarily 940 engaged in any other kind of work which is incidental to  or connected with mining operations either.  The work which  is incidental to or connected with mining operations must  have some  connection with or relation to the  mining  operations themselves.  The work that is carried on in the Head  Office which  consists  principally of the sale  operations  really begins  after  the  minerals are ready  and  all  operations incidental  to  or  connected  with  them  are  over.   This position is not disputed.  Therefore, there can be no  doubt that  under  the  Mines  Act, office  of  the  mine,  though situated  at the surface of the mine, is not  necessarily  a mine and the employees in the said office cannot necessarily be  said  to  be  persons employed in a  mine  and  so,  the regulatory provisions of the Mines Act would not necessarily

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

apply  to the office and would not govern the conditions  of service of the employees in the said office. It  is  in the light of the dictionary meaning of  the  word "mine" or in the light of the definition of the word  ’mine" contained  in the Mines Act that we have to decide  what  an industrial dispute concerning a mine means under  s.2(a)(i). Judged  in that way, their can be no difficulty  in  holding that an industrial dispute between the employees engaged  in the  Head  Office  at Calcutta and the employer  is  not  an industrial  dispute concerning a mine.  The lead  Office  is not  a  mine  and so, an industrial dispute  raised  by  the employees  engaged in the Head Office is not  an  industrial dispute concerning a mine. It  is,  however,  urged  by Mr. Sanyal  on  behalf  of  the appellant  that a mining lease under the Mines and  Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act (53 of 1948) means a  lease granted for the purpose of searching for, winning,  working, getting  making merchantable, carrying away or disposing  of minerals  or for purposes connected therewith, and  includes an  exploring or a prospecting license.  This Act  has  been substantially amended in 1957.  But for                             941 the  purpose of the argument urged on the definition of  the ’mining  lease" contained in s.(d), it is not  necessary  to refer to the subsequent amendments made in the Act or in the said definition itself.  The argument is that a mining  case contains a provision which enables the lessee to carry  away or  dispose of the minerals and so, the process of  disposal of  the minerals being covered by the mining lease  must  be held  to be integrally connected with the mining  operations and  since  sales of minerals are looked after in  the  Head Office,  the Head Office itself is a part of the  mine.   In our  opinion, there is no substance in this  argument.   The purpose  of granting a mining lease obviously is  to  enable the  lessee  to search for and win minerals and,  make  them merchantable.  The said purpose must necessarily include the right  of  the  lessee to carry away  the  minerals  and  to dispose of them in the market.  But the rights conferred  on the  lessee under a mining lease can have no direct  bearing on the question of the construction of s. 2(a)with which  we are  concerned.   As  we have already pointed  out,  in  the absence  of  a  definition of the word ,,mine"  in  the  Act itself, we have to take either the dictionary meaning of the word or the definition of the word "mine" in the Mines  Act. The rights conferred on the lessee in whose favour a  mining lease  is executed can be of no assistance  in  interpreting the  word  ’mine"  in section 2(a)(i).   Therefore,  we  are satisfied  that the Tribunal was right in holding  that  the present  dispute between the appellant and its employees  at its Head Office at Calcutta is not a dispute in relation  to a mine. On  general  considerations  also,  the  conclusion  of  the Tribunal appears to be right.  The Central Government  would be  interested in industrial disputes in relation to a  mine and  so, in regard to such disputes, the Central  Government is made the appropriate Government by s.(2)(a). In this con- nection, it would not be unreasonable to assume 942 that   the  Central  Government  would  be   interested   in industrial  disputes  relating to mines as  defined  by  the mines  Act.   The relevant provisions of the mines  Act  are intended  to regulate labour in mines and as the  scheme  of the Act shows, several provisions have been made by the  Act for  the  health and safety of the persons  working  in  the mines  and  provisions  have also been made  for  hours  and

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

limitation  of employment in that-behalf.  If the scheme  of the Act shows that office of the mine is outside the purview of  the Act and the employees engaged in the  office  would, therefore,   not  ordinarily  be  governed  by   the   major provisions of the Act, it would not be unreasonable to  hold that  an  industrial dispute between such employees  of  the office  of  the mine and the employer is not  a  dispute  in which the Central Government would be interested.  It may be that  some  of  the  work done in the  office  of  the  mine situated at the surface of the mine may be incidental to  or connected  with  the mining operations,  as,  e.g.,  keeping muster  roll of workmen or payment register  maintained  for them.   Clerks engaged in such type of work may, be said  to be  persons  employed in a mine; but the work  in  the  Head Office  with which we are directly concerned in this  appeal is   wholly   unconnected  with  mining   operations.    All industrial  disputes  which are outside a. 2(a)(i)  are  the concern  of the State Government under section 2(a)(ii);  in other words, the general rule is that an industrial  dispute &rising  between  a  employer and  his  employees  would  be referred  for indication by the State Government, except  in cases falling under section 2(a)(i); and so it is the extent of  one of the exceptions mentioned in s. 2(a) (i)  that  we have  to determine in the present case.  In determining  the extent of the said exception, it would not be irrelevant  to bear  in mind the scope of the provisions of the  Mines  Act itself.  That it; why we think the fact that an office of  a mine is outside the definition of a mine is of  943 some  assistance  in interpreting the  word  ",’mine"  under section 2(a)(i). We  must,  therefore, hold that the Tribunal  was  right  in coming  to  the conclusion that the reference by  the  State Government  of  West Bengal in the present case  was  valid. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.