Case Note & Summary
The case involved a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court against the conviction of two appellants, one the owner and the other the manager of Khas Jawbad Colliery, for contravening Rule 7 of the Mines Creche Rules, 1946. The prosecution alleged that no creche attendant or creche-in-charge had been appointed as required. The Magistrate convicted both, the Sessions Court dismissed the appeal, and the Calcutta High Court in revision upheld the conviction but reduced the sentences and granted a certificate under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution. The appellants contended that the Mines Creche Rules, 1946 had been repealed because the Mines Act, 1923 under which they were framed was repealed by Section 88 of the Mines Act, 1952. They further argued that the rules could not be deemed to be rules under the corresponding Section 58(d) of the 1952 Act because that provision had a wider scope covering mines where women were employed or had been employed in the preceding twelve months, whereas the old Section 30(bb) of the 1923 Act applied only to mines where women were ordinarily employed. The manager additionally contended that Rule 7 imposed no duty on him and he could not be liable for omission to appoint a creche-in-charge. The Supreme Court, with the majority judgment delivered by Das Gupta J, rejected the first contention, following its earlier decision in Criminal Appeals Nos. 98 to 106 of 1959 that regulations framed under the Mines Act, 1923 survived repeal. On the second issue, the court accepted that the 1946 rules might not apply to all mines contemplated by the 1952 Act, but held that they covered a part of the ground that could be covered by Section 58(d) and continued in force to that extent by virtue of Section 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Since the evidence showed that the Jawbad Mine was one where women were ordinarily employed, the rules operated as rules under the 1952 Act and contravention of Rule 7 was an offence under Section 73 of the 1952 Act. On managerial liability, the majority held that Section 18(1) of the Mines Act, 1952 made the owner, agent and manager responsible for all operations carried on in connection with the mine in accordance with the Act and rules. Section 18(2) provided that in the event of any contravention by any person whosoever, the owner, agent and manager shall each be deemed also to be guilty unless he proves that he had taken all reasonable means, by publishing and to the best of his power enforcing those provisions, to prevent such contravention. The manager did not prove any such measures, so he was deemed guilty of the contravention by the owner. The court distinguished State Government, M.P. v. Deodatta Diddi and approved G.D. Bhattar v. State. Mudholkar J dissented on the manager's liability, opining that 'mining operation' did not include management of mines such as providing amenities, and the manager had no power to enforce the owner's duty. The majority decision upheld the conviction of both appellants under Section 73 of the Mines Act for contravention of Rule 7 of the Mines Creche Rules, 1946.
Headnote
A) Statutory Interpretation - Repeal and Saving of Subordinate Legislation - Rules framed under a repealed Act survive if the corresponding provision in the new Act covers the same subject matter - Indian Mines Act, 1923, Section 30(bb); Mines Act, 1952, Section 58(d); General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 24 - The appellants contended that the Mines Creche Rules, 1946 stood repealed with the repeal of the Mines Act, 1923. The court held that the rules covered a part of the ground that could be covered by rules under Section 58(d) of the 1952 Act and continued in force to the extent of that overlap by virtue of Section 24 of the General Clauses Act. Held, the rules survived the repeal and operated as rules under the 1952 Act (Paras 1-5). B) Mines and Minerals - Welfare Provisions for Women Employees in Mines - Creche Rules apply to mines where women are ordinarily employed under both old and new Acts - Mines Creche Rules, 1946, Rules 3 and 7; Mines Act, 1952, Section 58(d) - The 1952 Act widened the scope to include mines where women were employed or had been employed in the preceding twelve months, but the 1946 rules, framed under the narrower Section 30(bb), applied only to mines where women were ordinarily employed. The court held that the Jawbad Mine was such a mine and thus the Mines Creche Rules operated as rules under the 1952 Act; contravention of Rule 7 was therefore contravention under Section 73 of the 1952 Act (Paras 1-5). C) Criminal Liability - Vicarious Liability of Manager for Breach of Welfare Rules - Owner, agent and manager deemed guilty unless they prove reasonable preventive measures - Mines Act, 1952, Section 18(1) and (2) - Although Rule 7 of the Mines Creche Rules imposed the duty to appoint a creche-in-charge on the owner only, Section 18(2) deems the manager also guilty of any contravention by any person unless he proves that he took all reasonable means to prevent it. The manager did not prove such measures, so he was deemed guilty. Held, manager was vicariously liable (Paras 1-5). D) Judicial Opinion - Dissenting View on Managerial Liability - Manager not vicariously liable for owner's omission when rule imposes no duty on manager - Mines Act, 1952, Section 18 - Per Mudholkar J, 'mining operation' did not include management of mines such as employment of labour and providing amenities, and the manager had no power to enforce the owner's duty under Rule 7(1). Held, the manager would not be liable under that dissenting view (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Mines Creche Rules, 1946 stood repealed upon repeal of the Mines Act, 1923 by the Mines Act, 1952; whether those rules could be deemed rules under Section 58(d) of the 1952 Act despite differing scope; and whether the manager of a mine was vicariously liable under Section 18(2) of the 1952 Act for breach of Rule 7 of the Mines Creche Rules when the rule imposed no direct duty on the manager.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of both appellants under Section 73 of the Mines Act for contravention of Rule 7 of the Mines Creche Rules, 1946. The owner and manager were held liable; the manager was deemed guilty under Section 18(2) of the Mines Act, 1952 for not proving reasonable preventive measures. Justice Mudholkar dissented on manager's liability.
Law Points
- Rules framed under a repealed Act survive if corresponding provision in new Act covers same subject matter
- by virtue of Section 24 General Clauses Act
- 1897
- Contravention of Mines Creche Rules 1946 is contravention of rules under Mines Act 1952
- Owner
- agent and manager are each deemed guilty of any contravention by any person unless they prove reasonable preventive measures under Section 18(2) of Mines Act 1952
