Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the respondent, as owner of a coke plant adjacent to a coal mine, was the owner of a coal mine within the meaning of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act, 1948 and the Scheme.
Analysis: The expression "coal mine" in section 2(b) of the 1948 Act was construed as covering not merely an excavation where coal is obtained, but also the subsidiary works, machinery, tramways and sidings only when they belong to, and are under the same ownership as, the coal mine. The ownership element was treated as controlling, and the word "or" occurring before "belonging to a coal mine" was read as "and" to avoid an unreasonable result under which independent plant or transport facilities would be treated as a coal mine. The amended definition introduced by the 1965 Amendment Act was relied upon as confirming the proper interpretation of the earlier provision rather than effecting a change in the law. On the admitted facts, the respondent did not carry on excavation or mining operations and merely owned a separate coke plant.
Conclusion: The respondent was not the owner of a coal mine within the meaning of the Act and the Scheme.
Final Conclusion: The conviction could not stand, and the appeal failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Under section 2(b) of the 1948 Act, ancillary works fall within the definition of a coal mine only if they belong to the mine and are under the same ownership, and later amending legislation may be used to confirm the proper construction of an earlier ambiguous definition.