Dhagamwar Narsingh v. S.S. Grewal

Sarkar J, 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 collier-ies of which it appears to have a few, and he worked under the Company till the latter terminated his l:!Gl Rervices by a notice dated December 5, 1955. On D!iagamwar Na,rSifllh such discharge, the appellant, claiming to be a Wel-v. fare Officer of a. mine wit.bin r. 7'1(2) of the Mines S.S. Grewal Rules HJ5.3, which rule we shall later set out, filed SQrkar J. an appeal before respondent No. l, the Chief Inspec-tor 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 jrnlg-ment 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 fract-ion 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 1961 above qualifications may, with the approval lJht;:amwar Nar1in1li of the Chief Inspector be relaxed.

v. (3) ............•.•..................... \'''''''''"'''' S, S, Grtu:al

J. (4) A written notire of e'vcry such Sarlcn1 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 Wei-fare Officer shall b11 the same aa of other mem-bers 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 con-tend~. 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 who-ther 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 appell-ant 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 th~ appelhnt under the proviso to sub-r. (2) of r. 72 · 11161 af03r t,h·i R1hs ctmq into force. Thirdly, no notice Dhagamwar N arsingh as conte:nplated in r. 72(4) had been given concern-v. ing the appellant. It appears that the Chief Ins-S.S. Grt-wal p.:ictor found that the appellant "was performing Sarkar J. duties akin to those of Welfare Officers contempla-ted 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 a. person like the appellant who had the rcquisit o qualifications and was discharg-ing the <lut;ies prescribed for a Welfare Officer from before the Ruh·s came into force, would be :t Wel-fare 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 applica-tion was not intended. We do not think it necess-ary 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 con-tend·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,

36 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.

Ifl61 As we understood Mr. Sen, he also accepted that flhagamwar i.· ar slntli the Welfare Officer contemplated is one appointed

v. in respect of one mine. Now, the appellant was on S.S. <htwal his own case, the Welfare Officer of several mines of Sar/car J, 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 pro-viso 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.

l!Ml WORKMEN OF THE BOMBAY PORT TRC'ST

Octol1r JO. v.

TRUSTEES OF PORT OF BOMBA y

(K. N. WANCHOO, c. K. C. DAs GUPTA and

J. 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 I' 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 mak-ing 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