Disjunctive reading of Mines Act proviso upheld: Inspector could require appointment of a qualified manager.

The proviso to section 3(1)(b) of the Mines Act, 1952 governing open cast workings was construed disjunctively, because its negative structure showed that the listed conditions were alternatives rather than cumulative requirements. The word "and" at the end of clause (b) of sub-clause (ii) was therefore read as "or" to advance the statute's mine-safety scheme. On that reading, an open cast mine where persons employed exceeded fifty fell within the proviso and the Act applied. The Inspector of Mines was consequently empowered to issue notice under section 22 read with section 17 requiring appointment of a qualified manager.

---

---

Issues: Whether the word "and" at the end of clause (b) of sub-clause (ii) of the proviso to section 3(1)(b) of the Mines Act, 1952 had to be read conjunctively or disjunctively, and whether the Inspector of Mines had authority to serve notice requiring appointment of a qualified manager.

Analysis: The exclusion in section 3(1) of the Mines Act, 1952 was subject to the proviso applicable to open cast workings where any one of the stated conditions in clauses (a), (b) and (c) was absent. The structure of the proviso, including the negative wording of each condition, showed that the word "and" could not be read mechanically as conjunctive. It had to be construed as "or" to give effect to the legislative scheme intended to secure safety in mines. Since the respondents were engaged in open cast mining and the number of persons employed exceeded fifty, the mine fell within the proviso and the Act applied. The Inspector was therefore empowered to issue notice under section 22 read with section 17 of the Mines Act, 1952 requiring appointment of a qualified manager.

Conclusion: The word "and" was to be read disjunctively as "or", and the notice issued by the Inspector was valid.

---