1. Conviction under Section 73 of the Indian Mines Act for contravening Rule 7 of the Mines Creche Rules, 1946, regarding failure to appoint a creche in-charge. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1961 Supreme(SC) 190
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
18th April, 1961
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., S.K. DAS, K.C. DAS GUPTA, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
Mohan Lal Goenka and another, Appellants
Versus
State of W.B., Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1957.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. C. Muzamdar, Advocate, for Appellants; Mr. B. Sen, Sr. Advocate, (M/s. D. N. Mukherji and P. K. Bose, Advocates, with him), for Respondents.
Advocates:
B.SEN, D.N.MUKHERJI, P.K.BOSH, S.C.MAJUMDER
B.SEN, D.N.MUKHERJI, P.K.BOSH, S.C.MAJUMDER
Rules framed under a repealed Act survive if they overlap with the new Act's empowering provisions. Under the Mines Act 1952, managers are vicariously liable for regulatory contraventions, including those specifically assigned to owners, unless they prove they took all reasonable means to prevent the breach.
Headnote:(A) Indian Mines Act, 1952 - Sections 18, 58(d), and 73 - Mines Act, 1923 - Section 30(bb) - Mines Creche Rules, 1946 - Rule 7 - General Clauses Act - Section 24 - Survival of rules after repeal of the parent Act - Whether rules framed under a repealed Act continue to operate if they overlap with the empowering provisions of the new Act - Held: Rules framed under the earlier Act survive the repeal and continue in force to the extent they overlap with the provisions of the subsequent Act by virtue of the General Clauses Act. (Paras 3, 6)
(B) Indian Mines Act, 1952 - Section 18 - Duties and responsibilities of owners, agents, and managers - Scope of "operations carried on in connection with the mine" - Whether the failure to comply with rules regarding creches for female employees constitutes a contravention of "operations" - Held: The term "operations" includes conditions of employment of female labor; therefore, non-compliance with creche rules amounts to carrying on operations in contravention of the rules. (Para 10)
(C) Indian Mines Act, 1952 - Section 18(2) - Vicarious liability of manager - Whether a manager is liable for a contravention of a rule that specifically imposes a duty on the owner - Held: The owner, agent, and manager are severally liable for the breach of any regulations by any person whosoever, unless they prove they took all reasonable means to prevent such contravention. (Paras 11-14)
Facts of the case:
The owner and manager of a colliery were convicted for failing to appoint a creche-in-charge as required by the Mines Creche Rules, 1946. The mine was one where women were ordinarily employed. The appellants challenged the conviction on the grounds that the rules were repealed along with the 1923 Act and that the manager could not be held liable for a duty specifically cast upon the owner.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the 1946 Rules survived the repeal of the 1923 Act and remained applicable to mines where women were ordinarily employed under the 1952 Act. It further held that the manager is vicariously liable under Section 18 of the 1952 Act for the owner's failure to comply with the rules, unless the manager proves he took all reasonable means to prevent the contravention.
Issues: (1) Whether the Mines Creche Rules, 1946, survived the repeal of the Mines Act, 1923; (2) Whether these rules are deemed to be rules under Section 58(d) of the Mines Act, 1952; and (3) Whether a manager is liable for the contravention of a rule that imposes a duty specifically on the owner.
Ratio Decidendi: Rules framed under a repealed Act continue in force if they cover a part of the ground that can be covered by the new Act. Under the 1952 Act, the responsibility for ensuring that operations are conducted according to the rules extends to the owner, agent, and manager. The term "operations" encompasses employment conditions of female labor. Section 18(2) imposes a statutory presumption of guilt on the manager for any contravention, which can only be rebutted by proving that all reasonable means were taken to prevent it.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- crime and sentencing
- labour and employment law
Table of Contents
2. Whether the 1946 Rules survived the repeal of the 1923 Act and whether a manager is vicariously liable for duties specifically assigned to the owner. (Para 2 , 8 )
3. Rules survive repeal if they overlap with new legislation; operations include employment conditions; managers are vicariously liable unless reasonable prevention is proven. (Para 3 , 6 , 10 , 11 )
4. Rules surviving repeal remain valid where they overlap with new legislation; Section 18 imposes vicarious liability on managers for all mine operations, including employment conditions. (Para 6 , 10 , 14 )
6. Do rules framed under the Mines Act, 1923, survive the repeal of that Act by the Mines Act, 1952?
Yes, regulations and rules framed under the 1923 Act survive the repeal of that Act. (Para 3 )
7. Can rules framed under a repealed Act be deemed rules under a subsequent Act if the subsequent Act's scope is wider?
Yes, if the rules cover a part of the ground that could be covered by the new Act and the provisions overlap, they continue in force via the General Clauses Act. (Para 6 )
8. Does the term operations carried on in connection with the mine under Section 18 of the Mines Act, 1952, include employment conditions?
Yes, employment conditions of female labour, including compliance with the Mines Creche Rules, are inextricably connected with mining operations and fall under the responsibility of the owner, agent, and manager. (Para 10 )
9. Is a mine manager vicariously liable for a contravention of rules that specifically assign a duty to the owner?
Yes, under Section 18(2), the manager is deemed guilty of any contravention by any person unless they prove they took all reasonable means to prevent such contravention. (Para 11 , 14 , 15 )
Judgment
DAS GUPTA, J. : This appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Calcutta under Art. 134(1) (c) of the Constitution is against a judgment and order of that court, upholding the conviction of these appellants under S. 73 of the Indian Mines Act, for contravention of Rule 7 of the Mines Creche Rules, 1946. Rule 3 of these rules requires the owner of every mine to construct there a creche in accordance with the plans prepared in conformity with the rules and previously approved by the competent authority; Rule 7 provides that the owner of the mine shall appoint "a creche in charge, who shall be a woman possessing such qualifications and training as may be approved by the competent authority." The complaint which resulted in the conviction of the two appellants, of whom, one Goenka was the owner of the Khas Jawbad Colliery, and the other, viz., J. N. Gupta, the manager of the colliery, alleged that they had contravened Rule 7 of the Mines, Creche Rules, 1946, inasmuch as no creche attendant as required by that rule had been appointed there. After an appeal of the present appellants to the Court of Sessions was dismissed, they moved the High Court in revision, but were unsuccessful, except that their sentences were reduced. The High Court however gave a certificate under Art. 134(1) (c) and on that certificate the present appeal has been filed.
2. The main contentions raised on behalf of the appellants are, (1) that the Mines Creche Rules, 1946, had stood repealed, along with the repeal by S. 88 of the Mines Act of 1952, of the Mines Act, 1923, under which these rules were admittedly framed and, (2) they having been framed under S. 30(bb) of the Mines Act 1923, cannot be deemed to be rules made under the Mines Act, 1952, as the requirements of the corresponding section of the 1952 Act, viz., S. 58(d) are different from what is required by S. 30(bb) of the 1923 Act.
3. In Chief Inspector of Mines v. Karan Thaper Criminal Appeals Nos. 98 to 106/59: (AIR 1961 SC 838), we have decided that regulations framed under S. 29 of the Mines Act, 1923, survive the repeal of that Act. The same reasons which form the basis of that decision apply to the rules framed under S. 30 of the Mines Act,1923: and so, the first contention raised on behalf of the appellants must be rejected as unsound.
4. The second question arises in this way. Clause (bb) of S. 30 of the 1923 Act mentions one of the purpose for which rules may be made in these words
"For requiring the maintenance in mines, wherein any women are ordinarily employed, of suitable rooms to be reserved for the use of the children under the age of 6 years belonging to such women, and for prescribing, either generally or with particular reference to number of women ordinarily employed in the mine, the number and standards of such rooms, and the nature and extent of the supervision to be provided therein."
5. In the Mines Act, 1952, Section 58 contains the provision empowering the Central Government to make rules for all or any of the purposes mentioned there. Clause (d) of this section runs thus:-
"For requiring the maintenance in mines, wherein any women are employed or were employed, on any day of the preceding twelve-months, of suitable rooms to be reserved for the use of the children under the age of six years belonging to such women, and for prescribing either generally or with particular reference to the number of women employed in the mines, the number and standards of such rooms, and the nature and extent of the amenities to be provided and the supervision to be exercised therein;".
6. While it is obvious that cl. (d) of S. 58 of 1952 Act corresponds to cl. (bb) of S. 30 of the 1923 Act. it has to be noticed that the requirement in the 1952 Act is wider. For, whereas rules under S. 30(bb) could require the maintenance of creches and could prescribe certain matters in regard to these, only in mines, wherein "any women are ordinarily employed". S. 58(d) authorises the framing of
