HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.24867 of 2013

ORDER

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“declaring the order dated 03.07.2013 bearing No.CPF/KGM/32/Legal/WP34757/2011/CTC/532 determining that activity undertaking by the petitioner do fall within the definition of ‘Coal Mine’ and the provisions of Coal Mines Provident Scheme will apply and thereby the petitioner is liable to pay contribution towards CMPF in respect of their employees contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Scheme of CMPF as arbitrary illegal capricious and contrary to Act and Scheme and consequently set aside the same”.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner firm was awarded transport contract for a period of three and half years from the date of commencement of work under agreement dated 09.08.2010. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 issued impugned order dated 03.07.2013 deciding that the activity undertaken by the petitioner wherein, the petitioner’s employees are deployed do fall within the definition of “Coal Mine” and their employees are entitled for the benefits under the provisions of CMPF Scheme. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay contribution towards Coal Mines Provident Fund in respect of their employees. Aggrieved by the said order dated 03.07.2013, the present writ petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents brings on record the judgment dated 26.07.2022 passed by Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.33111 of 2013 and batch and relies upon paragraph Nos.21 and 22 of the said judgment which reads as under:

“21. From a conjoint reading and careful analysis of the above provisions, the irresistible conclusion one can draw is that the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation. It is intended to confer certain benefits on labour working in or in connection with a coal mine. Thus the provisions of the Act are to be construed liberally. In the circumstances, in view of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in K.Venkateswarlu (supra) and decisions rendered by the Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation holding that activity undertaken by the contractor falls within the ambit of the definition ‘coal mine’, the employees engaged by the contractor would be entitled to the benefits under the Act as well as under the provisions of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme. The doubts expressed by the learned Single Judge in the previous round of litigation i.e., in Mallikarjuna Transport (supra) does not appear to be justified and the same has been proved by the consequential orders passed by the Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization.

22. Thus upon thorough consideration of all aspects of the matter, we have no hesitation in holding that a driver employed by a transport contractor engaged by the company for transportation of coal would come within the definition of the term ‘employee’ under Section 2(b) of the Act. Therefore, such a driver or employee would be entitled to the benefits of the Act and the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme”.

4. The learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contends that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief in view of the Division Bench Judgment dated 26.07.2022 passed in W.P.No.33111 of 2013 and batch (referred to and extracted above).

5. Taking into consideration the said submission made by learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondents that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed in the present writ petition by virtue of Division Bench Judgment dated 26.07.2022 passed in W.P.No.33111 of 2013 and batch, this Writ Petition is dismissed.

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As sequel to it, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand dismissed.

___________________________

N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J

07.04.2025 mrm