Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard two criminal appeals by certificate against the Bombay High Court's judgment dated 4 February 1963 affirming the acquittal of the respondent by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadagaon (Mawal). The case concerned the appropriate government under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for employment in stone breaking or stone crushing in a stone quarry and the consequent competence of the Labour Inspector (Central) to file complaints. A Labour Inspector appointed by the Central Government filed two complaints alleging that the respondent, while carrying on quarrying operation work in quarry survey No. 23(1) Kusegaon village near Lonavala, failed to observe provisions of Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950, thereby contravening s.22A read with s.18 of the Act. The respondent admitted facts but objected that only an inspector appointed by the Maharashtra State could file complaints because the appropriate government for a stone quarry was the State Government. The Magistrate upheld the objection, held that 'mine' in s.2(b)(i) did not include a stone quarry, and acquitted the respondent. The State's appeals were dismissed by the High Court on a different reasoning: while a stone quarry could fall within the definition of mine under the Mines Act 1952 or Mines and Minerals Act 1957, the Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act did not mention mine or stone quarry, and Entry 8 'employment in stone breaking or stone crushing' could not be said to be employment in a mine; hence Parliament needed to amend the Schedule. The core legal issues were whether 'mine' in s.2(b)(i) included a stone quarry; whether stone breaking or stone crushing in a quarry was a scheduled employment under Entry 8 Part I; and whether the Central Labour Inspector was competent to file the complaints. The appellant argued that the definition of 'mine' in the Mines Act, 1952 and Mines and Minerals Act 1957 should be read into the Minimum Wages Act, and a quarry is a mine. The respondent relied on Pandit Ram Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh to argue expressions cannot be imported from one Act to another, and on English decisions to say 'mine' primarily means underground excavations. The Supreme Court noted that 'mine' is not a definite term, but susceptible of limitation or expansion according to intention. Examining the context of s.2(b) and the background of Government of India Act, 1935 Entries 35 and 36 and Mines Act 1923, it concluded that the Central Legislature must have intended to include quarries in 'mine'; otherwise it would be incongruous for health, safety, hours and employment in quarries to be regulated by Central Government while minimum wages for such employment by State Governments. It found no indication of narrower meaning in the Act. It then held that stone breaking or stone crushing in a quarry is within Entry 8, applying Madhya Pradesh Mineral Industry Association v. Regional Labour Commissioner, [1960] 3 SCR 476. Therefore employment in stone breaking or stone crushing in a quarry is in a mine within s.2(b)(i), making the Central Government appropriate, and the Inspector appointed by the Central Government competent to file complaints. The appeals were allowed, the acquittal was set aside, and the complaints were held maintainable.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Statutory Interpretation - 'Mine' includes stone quarry - Minimum Wages Act, 1948, s.2(b)(i) - The Supreme Court examined the context and background of s.2(b) of the Minimum Wages Act, Government of India Act, 1935 Entries 35 and 36, and Mines Act, 1923, to hold that the word 'mine' was not a definite term and included quarries for the purpose of determining appropriate government; otherwise it would be incongruous for the Central Government to regulate health, safety, hours and employment in quarries while State Governments regulated minimum wages. Held that a stone quarry is a mine within s.2(b)(i) and Central Government is the appropriate government (Paras 3-9). B) Labour Law - Scheduled Employment - Stone breaking and stone crushing in a quarry falls under Entry 8 Part I of Schedule - Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Schedule Part I Entry 8 - The Court applied Madhya Pradesh Mineral Industry Association v. The Regional Labour Commissioner, Jabalpur, [1960] 3 S.C.R. 476, and held that when the Schedule speaks of stone-breaking or stone-crushing, it is not confined to operations in any particular place, and employment in a stone quarry is covered. Held that employment in stone breaking or stone crushing in a quarry is a scheduled employment within Entry 8 (Paras 8-9). C) Criminal Procedure - Cognizance of Offences - Competency of Central Labour Inspector to file complaint - Minimum Wages Act, 1948, ss.22A, 22B - Since the employment in stone breaking or stone crushing in a quarry was within the jurisdiction of the Central Government under s.2(b)(i), the Labour Inspector appointed by the Central Government under the Minimum Wages Act was competent to file the complaints. Held that the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the complaints was unsustainable, and the acquittal based solely on that objection was set aside (Paras 2, 9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the word 'mine' in s.2(b)(i) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 includes a stone quarry, and whether employment in stone breaking or stone crushing in a quarry is a scheduled employment under Entry 8 Part I of the Schedule, making the Central Government the appropriate government and the Central Labour Inspector competent to file complaints.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the acquittal, and held that 'mine' in s.2(b)(i) includes quarries; stone breaking or stone crushing in a quarry is within Entry 8 Schedule Part 1; Central Government was the appropriate government and the Labour Inspector (Central) was competent to file the complaints.
Law Points
- The word 'mine' in s.2(b)(i) of Minimum Wages Act
- 1948 includes stone quarries
- employment in stone breaking or stone crushing in a quarry is a scheduled employment within Entry 8 Part I of the Schedule
- the appropriate government for such employment is the Central Government
- an Inspector appointed by the Central Government is competent to file complaints for contraventions.
