Dhagamwar Narsingh v. S.S. Grewal

Judgment

/[It,) Sarkar J, 32 SUPREME COl.JRT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. DHAGAMWAR NARSINGH S.S. GREWAL (P. B. GA.JE~llRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR, K. N. W.\NCHOO and K. C. DAS GUPT.\, JJ.) Mine-Appenl-Chi•f l.nbour Officer of Company Termina· tion of seroict by cnmpany-Appeal ta Chief ln&pector of Min'8, if mainlainablt-Chief Labour Officer, if Wt/fare Oj/ictr-Mint1 Rule&, J.955, rr. 72, 73 and 74. The appellant wa• appointed as the Chief Labour Officer by the Company in 1947. In December, 195.'\, the company terminated his services. The appellant, claiming to be a W cl fare Ofl'ic.r, preferred an appeal to the Chief Inspector of Mines undrr r. 74(2) of the Mines Rules, 1955. Ildd, that the appellant was not a Welfare Officer and as such coul<l not prefer an appeal under r. 74 (2). The Welfare Officer mentioned in r. H (2) is the same officer as is mentioned in r. 72 (1) which rule contemplates a Welfare Officer appointed in respect of one n1ine.

But the apprllant was an officer of several mines of the Company and not of one of such mines only. C1v1L APPl:LLATF: JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 548 of 1958. Appeal hy Special Leave from the judgment and order dated March '27, 1957, of the Patna High Court in "Misc. Judicial Case ~o. 315 of 1956. Sen, P. W. Sahasralrudhe and A. rJ. Ratnaparkhi. for the Appellant. K. L. Ilathi and R. II. Dhebar, for Respon. dent Vo. I. N. C. Chatterjee and S. N. ,,fu.kerji, for Ri'S· pondent No. 2. 1961. October 9. The Judgment of the Court was clelivcrcd by SAHKAR, J.- On September 25, 1947, the appellant wn.s appointed by respondent No. 2, t.he Tata. Iron and SteAI Co., Ltd. ( hereafwr called the Company) a.s the Chief Labour Officer of its collieries of which it appears to have a few, and he worked ( 1) S.C.R. 33 under the Company till the latter terminated his Rervices by a notice dated December 5, 1955. On such discharge, the appellant, claiming to be a Welfare Officer of a. mine wit.bin r.

7'1(2) of the Mines Rules HJ5.3, which rule we shall later set out, filed an appeal before respondent No. l, the Chief Inspector of MineJ in India, untlor thrit rule questioning the validity of his discharge by the Company. The Chief Inspector held that the appellant was not a Welfare Officer within that rule and refused to entertain his appeal. The appellant then moved the High Court at Patna under Art. 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate writ directing tha Chief Inspector to decide the appeal. The High C:mrt di~missed the appellant's· petition agreeing substantially with the view taken by the Chief Insrector. The a.pp•·lhnt has now appealed to this Court against the jrnlgment of the High Court. The Mines Rules; 1955 were framed under the Mines Act, 1952, and came into force on .Tul:v 2, 19:J5. We are principally concerned with the proviso to r. 74(2) but this has to be read with r. 72. The relevant portions of these ruks are set out. below: Rule 72. (1)

In every mine wherein 500 or more persons a.re ordinarily employ<'d l·here shall be appointed at least one. Welfare Officer:- Provided that if the number of persons ordinarily employed exceeds 2000, there shall be appointed additional Welfare Officer on a scale of one for every 2000 persons or fraction thereof- (2) No person shall a.ct as a Welfare Officer of a mine unless he possesses- (Here certain qualifications are specified) Provided that in case of a person already in service as a Welfare Officer in a mine the l:!Gl D!iagamwar Na,rSifllh S.S. Grewal SQrkar J. lJht;:amwar Nar1in1li S, S, Grtu:al Sarlcn1 J. above qualifications may, with the approval of the Chief Inspector be relaxed. (3) ............•.•..................... \'''''''''"'''' (4) A written notire of e'vcry such appointment ............ and of tho date thereof ~hall be sent by the owner, agent or manager to the Chief Inspector within 7 days from the date of such appointment ................ .. Rule 73.

Duties of Welfare Officers : (Here certain duties are prescribed) Rule 74. (1) ................................... .. (2) Tho conditions of service of a Weifare Officer shall b11 the same aa of other members of the staff of corresponding status in the 1nine; Providl'd that in the case of discharge or d;smissal, tho Welfare Officer, shall have a right of appeal to the Chief Inspector whose dedsion thereon shall ho final and binding upon tho owner, agent or manager of the mine as the case may be. Tho Chief Inspector mentioned in these Rules is the Chief Inspector of Mines in India. If the appellant was not a Welfare Officer wit.bin the proviso to r. 74(2) as the company contend~. then, of course, no appeal by him lay under it. H1 would then oloarly not be entitled to the writ ho asked. Tho quPstion therefore is whother the appellant was a Welfare Officer within the rule and is really one of construction of it.

We desire now to point out certain facts as to which there is no co:1tr'.lversy. First, both the Act and tl}e Rules came into force long after:thc appellant had been appointe'.l by tho;Company. Secondly no relaxation of qualifications had beon sought from or granted by tho Chief Inspector with r•,cpoot to ( l) S.C.R. 35 th~ appelhnt under the proviso to sub-r. (2) of r. 72 · af03r t,h·i R1hs ctmq into force. Thirdly, no notice as conte:nplated in r. 72(4) had been given concerning the appellant. It appears that the Chief Insp.:ictor found that the appellant "was performing duties akin to those of Welfare Officers contemplated by rule 73 and he was qualified to work as a. Welfare Offi0er." We propose to deal with this appeal on the basis of these findings. ' Dealing with the contention noticed by the Chie'f InKpector and the High Court that a Welfare Officer under r. 74(2) is one who is appointed after the Rules came-into force, Mr. Sen for the appellant' said that person like the appellant who had the rcquisit o qualifications and was discharging the <lut;ies prescribed for a Welfare Officer from before the Ruh·s came into force, would be :t Welfare Officer within them.

He pointed out that the proviso to sub-r. (2) of r. 72 clearly contemplated tho eontinnance of the serrice of such a person as a Welfare Officer with relaxation where such was necessary and was granted. He also said that sub-r. (4) of r. 72 was inapplicable to Auch a person becauso he had been appointed long ago and because the proviso to r. 72(2) indicated that its application was not intended. We do not think it necessary to pronounce on this question in the present case. I.1 our view, the appeal must fail even if Mt'. Sen's contention is right and that for another reason. We observe that the Rules do not define the term ''\Velfare Officer". But we think it is beyond doubt-'tnd indeed the contrary has not been contend·Jd that the Welfare Officer mentioned in the proviso to r. 74(2) is the same officer as is mentioned iu sub-r (l) of r. 72. Now it is, in our view, perfectly plain that the Welfare Officer contemplated by r. 72\ 1) is such an officer of one mine.

The rule says that th ore shall be. at least one Welfare Officer for every mine employmg between 500 and 2000 persons and this makes anr other view impossible, 11161 Dhagamwar N arsingh S.S. Grt-wal Sarkar J. Ifl61 flhagamwar i.· ar slntli S.S. <htwal Sar/car J, l!Ml Octol1r JO. 36 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP. As we understood Mr. Sen, he also accepted that the Welfare Officer contemplated is one appointed in respect of one mine. Now, the appellant was on his own case, the Welfare Officer of several mines of the Company and not of one of such mines only. Therefore, we think that he was not a Welfare Officer within r. 72(1) and hence not within the proviso to r. 74(2). But Mr. Sen contends that the appellant might be considered as having been severally and inclepcndently appointed the Welfare Officer of each of thP- Company's several collieries in his charge. 'We think that that would be an impos8ible view to take.

One appointment cannot be treated as several appointments and it .is not in dispute that the appellant had only one appointment for all the Company's collieries. We think that this appeal fails and we dismiss it with costs. Appeal dismissed. WORKMEN OF THE BOMBAY PORT TRC'ST TRUSTEES OF PORT OF BOMBA y (K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAs GUPTA and J. c. SHAH, J.J.) [ndu,trial Di.opute-JVag,.-If payable for Sunday IM ''l·reekly off" day on uihich no 1r.ork was do"'- and for .<;unda~ 011 which worl: 1c<ZR dom without compnnatory nJI day-1/nte-Week/y holi<lay, meaning of-Minimum Wag,. Ar.I, W48 (XI~( J.948), .<.13-Minimum Wages Rulu, r. 23. The Minimum Wages Act, 194-8, and the Minimum \\'ages Rules, framed thereunder, laid down the principle that the Government should provide f'or a day of1cst to the workers for every period of 7 days and also to make provisions for making some payment in connection therewith.

The dispute between the workers and employers oft he present cruc related to (a) arrears of wages for Sunday, the "weekly off" day on which no work was done and (b) arrears of wages for work