M/S. DAMODAR MANGALJI AND CO. ETC.versusTHE REGIONAL DIRECTOR

                                                                                               I

                                                                                               ~



A                  MIS. DAMODAR MANGALJI AND CO. ETC.
                                                                                           '
                                    v.
                          THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR

                               FEBRUARY27, 2001

B                 [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.]

          Employees State Insurance Act I 948/Mines Act J952-Section 2(1 ),
    2(12)/2(a)(i)-"Appropriate government" and "mines"-Scope of-Wonf
     'mine' confines to case concerning a mine where extraction of ores actually
c   takes place and not office-Furthe1; the appropriate Gorernment in respect of
    such offices is the State Government.

          Mines of the appellant is situated at 'P' and office of the mines is at
    Sanquelin. Payment to the staff and workers is made through the office at
    Sanquelin. But the mining operations and incidental work is done at Pisarlen
D   and head office• of the establishment is at Panaji. Government of Goa,
    Daman & Diu issued a notification under the Employee's State Insurance
    Act, 1948, which is under challenge.

          Appellant contended before this court that the notification was not
E   applicable to the mining industry because the appropriate Government in         .,..
    respect of mines was the Central Government and not the State Govern-
    ment. The expression 'mine' under section 2(1) of the ESI Act read with
    expression 'in respect of' would include the area where extraction of ores
    takes place and the other offices.
F
          Dismissing the appeals, the Court

          HELD : 1.1. The expression 'mine' under section 2(a)(i) of the
    Mines Act, 1952 confines to case concerning a mine where extraction of
    ores takes place and not offices or the other parts of establishment.
G   Further the expression 'the appropriate Government' in 'the Industrial
    Disputes Act, 1947 is identical with the expression •tt.e appropriate
    Government' defined under the Mines Act, 1952.[184-A-E]

          Mis. Sc.rajuddin and Co. v. Their Workmen, [1962] Supp. 3 SCR 934,
H   held applicable.
                                        182
     DAMODAR MANGAUI v. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR [R. BABU, l.] 183
         T1ie Ballarpur Colleries Co. v. State Industrial Court, Nagpur and Ors.,       A
[1966) 2 SCR 589, distinguished.

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8890of1997.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 12.2.97 of the Mumbai High Court
in ,,F.A. No. 88 of 1988.                                                               B

                                          wrrn
         Civil Appeal No. 8891 of 1997.

         R.F. Nariman, Pratap Venugopal, P.S. Sudheer, K.J. John, for the Appel-        C
!ants.

         V.J. Francis and Ms. Sheela Goel, for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                                        D
          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 :he
 Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'].
 The.appellant raised a contention that since they are engaged in mining indus-             E
 try and as a part of the integrated activity of such industry have an oflice away
 from the mines as such. The contention put forth before the ES! 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
                                                                                            F
 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 oftices and that the enactment itself intends to make            G.
 a distinction, it.has so been made as is clear from Section 2(12) which defines
 the expression "factmy", and mine which is subject to tl1e operation of tl1e
 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. v. State
 Industrial Court, Nagpur & Ors., [1966] 2 SCR 589. On behalf of the respond-               H
     184                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2001] 2 S.C.R.
A    cnt, strong reliance is placed upon the decision in Mis Serajuddin & Co. v.           -~
     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 talces
     place as defined under the Mines Act and not other parts of the establishment.
B
            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 Sanqnelin while the mining operations and the incidental work is done
     at Pisurlen. The Head Office of the establishment is at Panaji.
c            In The Balla1purCollieries 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 alter the word
       'following' the word "industries' must be read and thus read the notification
D     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 Mis 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
E     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 inter-
      pretation 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
F     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 \vas not a dispute concerning a mine which must n1ean
     mine as defined under the Mines Act. Therefore, this Court, having inter-
     preted the expression 'the appropriate Government' in the Industrial Disputes
     Act in Mis Serajuddin & Co. 's case [supra) which is identical with the
G    expression 'the appropriate Government' as defined under the Act, we think
      the view talcen by the High Court is correct and calls for no interference. This
      appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. No Costs.

    C.A.No.8891197
H          In this matter questions arising for consideration are identical to those
            l>AMODAR MANGALJI v. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR [R. BABU, J.] 185
~   arose in C.A.No.8890/97. Following the decision therein, this appeal also        A
    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   B
    disposed of accordingly.

    N.J .                                                     Appeals dismissed.




.