- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Chatturam Darsanram And Others v. Union Of India
Structured Summary of the Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India sought quashing of the Central Government notification dated 28 May 1976 (annexure 1) revising minimum wages of workmen employed in mica mines. The petitioners are operators of mica mines situated in the State where the proceedings were heard. Their primary grievance was that workmen employed in mica mines are not employed in a "scheduled employment" as defined in S. 2(g) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (the Act), and therefore the Central Government lacked jurisdiction to issue annexure 1. It was not disputed that the appropriate Government for a mine is the Central Government and that item (10) of the schedule to the Act refers to "employment in any mica works."
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the expression "employment in any mica works" in item (10) of the schedule to the Minimum Wages Act includes "employment in mica mines" (i.e., whether "works" can be read to cover "mines").
- Whether, given that inclusion in the schedule is a condition precedent to fixing minimum wages, the Central Government had jurisdiction to issue annexure 1 fixing minimum wages for employees of mica mines.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments (Sri Roy, counsel)
- Item (10) of the schedule — "employment in any mica works" — applies to mica works (factories/establishments) and not to mica mines; therefore the Central Government lacked jurisdiction to fix minimum wages for mica mines under that item.
- A place where mica is cut and processed is a factory/works and cannot be equated to a mine; such processing activities are distinct from searching for or winning minerals.
Central Government's Argument (Sri Sahai Sinha, Standing Counsel)
- The State Government had fixed minimum wages by notification dated 22 April 1975 in respect of mica factories and establishments; the Central Government's notification should be regarded as directed to mica mines (as the Central Government is the appropriate authority for mines) while the State notification covered factories and establishments.
- Implicitly, the Central Government's position was that the State notification related to mica works (factories/establishments) and that the Central notification addressed mines.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Madhya Pradesh Mineral Industry Association v. Regional Labour Commissioner, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 1058 | The "beneficent rule of construction" — courts may prefer an interpretation that sustains the validity of a statute or administrative action where words are susceptible to two constructions and the interpretation aids justice. | The Court noted the principle but held it inapplicable because the words "works" (in item (10)) and "mine" were not capable of the two constructions required for the beneficent rule to apply; "works" could not reasonably be construed to mean "mine" in the facts of this case. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court's analysis proceeded in a series of linked steps grounded in statutory definitions, dictionary meanings, admitted facts and the structure of the schedule to the Minimum Wages Act:
- Statutory and lexical definitions:
- The Act's scheduled employment concept (S. 2(g)) limits the appropriate Government's power to fix minimum wages to employments specified in the schedule or processes/branches forming part of such employments.
- The word "mine" — as defined in the Mines Act, 1952 — denotes an excavation for searching for or obtaining minerals and includes a number of specified adjuncts (shafts, open cast workings, conveyors, workshops within the precincts of a mine used solely for mine-related purposes, etc.).
- Dictionary meanings cited indicate "works" (plural) denotes factories or manufactories — i.e., places where manufacturing/processing occurs.
- Textual distinction between "works" and "mine":
- On the plain meaning and statutory definition, "mine" involves excavation and activities connected with searching for or winning minerals; "works" denotes factories or establishments where manufacturing or processing takes place.
- Therefore, "works" and "mine" have different connotations and occupy different fields of operation; "works" cannot, by ordinary meaning, be read to include a "mine."
- Application of definitions to admitted facts:
- The petitioners stated in a supplementary affidavit that mica is cut and processed in the factories and establishments in question; the respondent did not deny these facts.
- The impugned notification (annexure 1) related to places where mica is cut and processed. Such places are processing/working establishments (mica works) and are not within the definition of "mine" because their activities are not connected to searching for or winning minerals.
- Context and the schedule's structure:
- The schedule elsewhere (items (12) and (13), as added under S. 27) expressly lists different specific kinds of mines, demonstrating that if Parliament or the appropriate Government intended to include mica mines, it would have done so explicitly.
- The State Government had issued a notification dated 22 April 1975 fixing minimum wages in respect of mica works (factories and establishments), which clarified that the State considered those processing establishments to fall under "works."
- Rejection of alternative constructions and interpretive doctrines:
- The Court acknowledged the beneficent rule of construction (citing Madhya Pradesh Mineral Industry Association v. Regional Labour Commissioner) but held it inapplicable because the words in item (10) were not reasonably capable of two constructions; "works" could not be construed to mean "mines."
- The Central Government's contention that the State notification covered factories and the Central notification should cover mines was found to be without substance on the textual and factual analysis above.
- Conclusion of analysis:
- Because "employment in any mica works" does not include "employment in mica mines," the Central Government's notification (annexure 1) purporting to fix minimum wages for workmen in mica mines under item (10) was ultra vires the Act.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The impugned notification dated 28 May 1976 (annexure 1 to the writ application) issued by the Central Government fixing minimum wages for employees working in mica mines is quashed.
Implications and direct consequences:
- The Central Government's notification (annexure 1) is held ultra vires and is quashed; the writ petition is allowed.
- The Court observed that the Central Government retains the statutory power under S. 27 of the Minimum Wages Act to add items to the schedule; the Central Government may, if it wishes, add items to the schedule to achieve the object for which annexure 1 was issued.
- No order as to costs was made.
- The opinion confines itself to the direct effect between the parties (quashing annexure 1) and does not record the setting of any new binding precedent beyond the application of established interpretive principles to the facts; the Court explicitly rejected an expansive reading of "works" to include "mines" in this context.
Additional Notes from Concurring Opinion
Justice Hari Lal Agrawal agreed with the primary judgment and added observations emphasizing:
- The statutory scheme: S. 3 authorizes the appropriate Government to fix minimum rates for employments specified in the schedule; the "appropriate Government" is defined in S. 2(b).
- The factual distinction between mica mines (extraction) and mica works (processing, e.g., cutting, sorting, splitting, fabrication) is clear and supports the conclusion that "mica works" does not include "mica mines."
- Because inclusion in the schedule is a condition precedent for issuing a notification under the Act, the Central Government's notification for mica mines was ultra vires and therefore had to be quashed.
S. Roy, J.:— This application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the notification, dated 28 May 1976, issued by the Central Government revising the minimum wages of the workmen employed in the mica mines. This notification is annexure 1 to the writ application.
2. The petitioners carry on mica mining business and their mica mines are situated in this State. The grievance of the petitioners is that as the workmen working in mica mines are not employed in “a scheduled employment” as defined in S. 2 (g) of the Minimum Wages, Act, 1948, (hereinafter called the Act), the Central Government had no jurisdiction to issue annexure 1 to the writ application.
3. There is no controversy that minimum wages may be fixed by the appropriate Government in respect of the employment specified in the schedule to the Act. There is also no controversy that the appropriate Government in relation to a mine is the Central Government. According to S. 2 (g) of the Act, scheduled employment means an employment specified in the schedule or any process or a branch of work forming part of such employment. Item (10) of the schedule is as follows: “employment in any mica works.” Sri Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that by virtue of item (10) of the schedule appropriate Government may fix minimum wages in respect of workmen employed in any mica works and it cannot so do in respect of a mica mine.
4. Mine has not been defined in the Act. According to the definition of “mine” given in the Mines Act, 1952, it means any excavation where any operation for the purpose of searching for or obtaining minerals has been or is, being carried on and includes:
(i) all borings, bore holes and oil wells;
(ii) all shafts, in or adjacent to and belonging to a mine, whether in the course of being sunk or not;
(iii) all levels and inclined planes in the course of being driven;
(iv) all open cast workings;
(v) all conveyors or aerial ropeways provided for the bringing into or removal from a mine of minerals or other articles or for the removal of refuse therefrom;
(vi) all audits, levels planes, machinery, works, railways, tramways, and sidings, in or adjacent to and belonging to a mine;
(vii) all workshops situated within the precincts of a mine end under the same management and used solely for purposes connected with that mine or a number of mines under the same management;
(viii) all power stations for supplying electricity solely for the purpose of working the mine or a number of mines under the same management;
(ix) any premises for the time being used for depositing refuse from a mine, or in which any operation in connexion with such refuse is being carried on, being premises exclusively occupied by the owner of the mine; and
(x) unless exempted by the Central Government by notification in the official gazette, any premises or part thereof, in or adjacent to and belonging to a mine, on which any process ancillary to the getting, dressing or preparation for sale of minerals or of coke is being carried on.”
The dictionary meaning of “mine” is, a place from which minerals are dug. Mine, therefore, means an excavation for searching or winning minerals and activities connected thereto. According to Oxford English Dictionary and Chambers' Dictionary, the word “work” in plural, i.e, “works” means a factory, a manufactory. Therefore, a place where a manufacturing process is carried on is a works. By no stretch of imagination “mine” can be included within the meaning of “works.” Therefore, item (10) of the schedule cannot include workmen employed in mica mine.
5. From the definition of “mine” quoted above it will appear that in Cl. (vii) workshops may be included within the meaning of “mine” if, besides other circumstances, it is used solely for the purposes connected with the mine. In the supplementary affidavit filed in this case, the petitioners have asserted that in the factories and establishments in question mica is cut and processed. These facts have not been denied by the respondent. It is the admitted case that annexure 1 relates to those places where mica is cut and processed. A place where mica is cut and processed can never be included in the definition of mine, inasmuch as the activities cannot be held to be connected with searching for or winning minerals. By the inclusive definition of “mine,” as quoted above, mine may include a works or workshop, but not vice versa.
6. This appears to be the correct legal position also from entries in items (12) and (13) of the schedule. By virtue of the powers vested in it by S. 27 of the Act the Central Government, in relation to mine, added items (12) and (13) which include gypsum mines, beryles mines, bauxite mines, manganese mines, china clay mines, kynite mines and magnesite mines. If Parliament or appropriate Government intended that the Act should apply also to workmen employed in mica mines, then it would have so specified in the schedule. Further, it appears that the State Government, which is the appropriate Government, have fixed minimum wages under the Act in respect of the employment in mica works and a notification was issued on 22 April 1975. Sri Sahai Sinha, learned Standing Counsel, Central Government, appearing on behalf of the Central Government, submitted that the said notification appears to have been made in respect of employment in mica works (factories and establishments) in the State of Bihar. On the basis of this, he contended that the State Government fixed minimum wages in respect of the factories and establishments in the mica industry and so far as mica mines are concerned it was for the Central Government to fix the minimum wages. In my opinion, there is no substance in the submission. By adding the words “factories and establishments” in the notification, the State Government has clarified more elaborately what it meant by “works.” To my mind, therefore, item (10) of the schedule does not include mica mines.
7. It is true that for interpreting the provisions which have been enacted for doing justice, the Court should adopt what is known as the beneficent rule of construction. That rule of construction shall apply only when the relevant words are capable of two constructions and if that is so, preference may be given which helps to sustain the validity of the impugned notification: Madhya Pradesh Mineral Industry Association v. Regional Labour Commissioner [A.I.R 1960 S.C 1058], that rule of interpretation also does not apply in this case as “works” in item (10) of the schedule cannot also be construed to mean “mine.” It must, therefore, be held that the notification (annexure 1) is ultra vires and must be quashed.
8. In the result, the application is allowed and the impugned notification which is contained in annexure 1 to the writ application is quashed. However, the Central Government may, by virtue of the power vested in it by S. 27 of the Act, add items in the schedule to achieve the object with which the impugned notification has been issued. There shall be no order as to costs.
9. Hari Lal Agrawal, J.:— While I agree with my learned brother that annexure 1 to the writ application should be quashed, I would like to add a few observations of my own. Under S. 3 of the Minimum Wages Act the appropriate Government has been authorized in the manner provided under the Act, to fix the minimum rates of wages payable to employees employed in an employment specified in Part I or Part II of the schedule. The expression “appropriate Government” has again been defined in Cl. (b) of S. 2, which may be either the Central Government or a State Government according to the employment as indicated under that clause.
10. The matter arises out of item (10) of the schedule of Part I which empowers the appropriate Government to fix minimum rates of wages with respect to “employment in any mica works.” Purporting to act under the authority of this scheduled employment, the Central Government, which undisputedly would be the appropriate Government with regard to fixation of minimum wages in relation to a mine, issued the impugned notification. The argument is that the expression “employment in any mica works” would not cover within its mischief the “employment in any mica mines.” It may also be mentioned that the State of Bihar has issued a notification, dated 22 April 1975, (annexure 6), with reference to this very item in relation to different categories of employees in the employment of mica works and the notification has specified various categories of employees whose minimum wages have been fixed by the notification of the State Government, and on a scrutiny of the said notification itself it would appear that mica requires an extensive processing after it is taken out of the mica mines, such as cutting, sorting and processing, splitting, passing, matering, fabrication of all types of mica, and the like.
11. My learned brother has already referred to the dictionary meaning of the word “works” in his judgment, according to which it means “factories” and “establishments.” The expression “mine” on the other hand, has got a different connotation according to its very definition under the Mines Act which has also been noticed in the judgment of my learned brother and I do not want to repeat the same. Suffice it to say that the connotations of “mica mine” and “mica works” are entirely distinguishable and different and both occupy quite different fields and areas of operation. In my view, therefore, it would not be reasonable to read “mica mines” in the expression “mica works,” particularly whenever it was intented to include employment in relation to any mine, then under item (12) by clear intendment, employments in various kinds of mines have been stated in unambiguous manner. As the inclusion of an employment in the schedule is a condition precedent for issuing any notification by the appropriate Government, I must hold that the notification issued by the Central Government as contained in annexure 1 fixing the minimum wages of the various employees working in the mica mines, is ultra vires and must be quashed.
Alert