SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1960 Supreme(AP) 206

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : N.KUMARAYYA, P.CHANDRA REDDY
Maturi Durgaiah - Appellant
Versus
Agent, Tandur Collieries, Bellampalli - Respondent
Decided On : 08-29-60

Persons employed in a mine within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Mines Act, 1952, are only those who do work incidental to or connected with mining operations.

Headnote:

MINES ACT - SECTION 2(H) - CARTMEN EMPLOYED TO REMOVE RUBBISH AND GARBAGE FROM COLLIERY COLONY - NOT PERSONS EMPLOYED IN A MINE - NOT ENTITLED TO BE INCLUDED IN REGISTER OF EMPLOYEES - WRIT OF MANDAMUS NOT ISSUABLE.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, along with twelve other cartmen, was engaged in clearing rubbish and garbage from the campus of the Tandur Collieries Colony. They were paid daily wages but were not included in the register of employees maintained under Section 48 of the Mines Act, 1952. The appellant filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent, the Agent of the Tandur Collieries, to accord them the status of Mine Employees and give them all benefits incidental to that status.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the appellant and other cartmen did not satisfy the definition of persons employed within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Mines Act, 1952, and therefore, they were not entitled to be included in the register of employees. The court also held that a writ of mandamus could not be issued to the respondent as the dispute was between private parties and neither of them was a statutory body.

Issues: 1. Whether the cartmen employed to remove rubbish and garbage from the colliery colony were persons employed in a mine within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Mines Act, 1952? 2. Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to the respondent to accord the appellant and other cartmen the status of Mine Employees and give them all benefits incidental to that status?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 2(h) of the Mines Act, 1952, and held that only persons who do work incidental to or connected with mining operations are persons said to be employed in a mine. The court found that the work performed by the cartmen in this case had no relation to mining operations and therefore, they could not be characterized as being incidental to or connected with mining operations. 2. The court held that a writ of mandamus could only be issued to inferior Courts, Tribunals, and bodies entrusted with powers by the law of the land to effect the legal rights of the parties. The court found that the Tandur Collieries or the Agent thereof could not be described as a tribunal or a body entrusted with powers by the law of the land to effect the legal rights of the parties.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.

REDDY, C. J.

( 1 ) WE do not think that any exception Could be taken to either of the two views of our learned brother, Seshachalapati, J. , in the writ petition.

( 2 ) OUR learned brother dismissed the writ petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent, the Agent Tandur Collieries, Bellampally, to accord the status of Mine Employees to the appellant and other eartmen and give them all benefits incidental to that status.

( 3 ) THE appellant along with twelve other carbnen is engaged in clearing the rubbish and garbage from the campus of the Tandur Collieries Colony. They remove the dirt and the rubbish through bullock-carts owned by them and they are paid daily wages at Rs. 2-13-0 a day.

( 4 ) THE respondent is the agent of the Singareni Collieries Co. , within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the Mines Act (35 of 1952 ). Section 48 of the Mines Act, provides that for every mine there should be kept in the prescribed form and place a register of persons employed in the Mine showing the various particulars referred to in clauses (a) to (h) together with the entries under Sub-section (ii) and other clauses of the section. The All India Industrial Tribunal (Collieries Disputes), by an award D/-26-5-56, defined the sweeping mazdoors under the occupational nomenclature in these words:-"a Mazdoor is generally employed on the surface to keep the surface area including screening and washing plants from paper, dirt etc. He may be employed under the Medical Officer to keep the areas round the colliery dhowrahs and colliery drains in good order. "

( 5 ) THE appellant applied that he and other cart-men should be recognised as employees of the mine and their names duly registered in the register to be maintained in the manner indicated above, so that they might gel all the benefits, privileges and perquisites of other employees of the company.

( 6 ) THIS request was not granted by the respondent in the view that the appellant and other carimen could not be regarded as employees within the purview of Section 2 (h) of the Indian Mines Act.

( 7 ) IT is to direct the respondent to give all the cart-men removing the rubbish the status of employees within the connotation of Section 2 (h) that jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 was invoked.

( 8 ) SESHACHALAPATI, J. , dismissed the writ petition in file opinion that the appellant and other cart-men do not fulfil the definition of persons employed within the words of 2 ( h) or the Mines Act and also on the ground that a writ of mandamus is not an appropriate remedy in this case.

( 9 ) IN this appeal, the conclusions of the learned Judge are canvassed. The first question that presents itself in the enquiry is whether the cartmen employed in this case satisfy the definition of persons employed contained in Section 2 (h) of the Act. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to read the terms of Section 2 (h):-

( 10 ) SECTION 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 the machinery used in or about the mine or in any other kind of work whatsoever incidental to or connected with mining operations. "

( 11 ) IT is manifest that only persons who do work incidental to or connected with mining Operations are persons said to be employed in a mine. In our judgment, the work performed by the cartmen in this case has no relation to mining Operations. Therefore, their work could not be characterised as being incidental to or connected with mining operations. They do not work in the Colony for the removal of dirt, rubbish and garbage, since there are other persons employed for that purpose. They merely carry the rubbish and garbage outside the Colony. That being the position, we find it difficult to posit that they fall either directly under the definition of persons employed within the meaning of Section 2 (h) o





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top