BIRA KISHORE NAIK versus COAL INDIA LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [1986] 2 S.C.R. 1044 · Decided: 07-05-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
E 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1044 
BIRA KISllORE NAIK 
v. 
roAL INDIA LTD. & <XlS. 
MAY 7, 1986 
(0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND K.N. SINGH, JJ,] 
Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 - S.14 - Benefit 
of - When available. 
Coal Mines (Taking Over 
of Management) 
Act, 
1973 -
-1-
s.3(2) proviso - Notification by Central Government - Whether 
existence of a coal mine on the appointed day as defined by 
s.2(b) essential pre-requisite -
Whether acquisition of 
knowledge by Central Government about existence of coal mine l 
enough -
Burden of proof that co.nditions for issuance of " 
notification satisfied on whom - Nature of proof required. 
Respondent No. 4 obtained a composite lease for mining 
coal and fire coal and other minerals in respect of certain 
area comprising Natundihi 
Pahariabera Colliery from the 
Government of West 
Bengal. According to the petitioner, 
respondent 
No.4 
after 
obtaining 
permission 
from 
the 
authorities coDlllE!nced the extraction of coal from the mine in 
1973 and in that connection he eqiloyed the petitioner and 700 
workmen. Respondent No. 4 was prevented from working the coal A 
mine in view of the nationalisation of the coal mines under 
the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973. After the closure 
of the coal mine the petitioner and 700 workmen were rendered 
uneP1ployed and in spite of several representations to the 
Government 
of West 
Bengal, 
the Coal 
India and 
Central 
Government nothing was done to alleviate their hardship. 
The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court 
f. 
under Art. 32 of the Constitution purporting to do so on 
behalf of 700 workmen claiming relief for issue of a writ of 
mandaD11s directing the respondent to declare that the said 
colliery has vested in the Central Government and in the 
alternative directing the Union of India to take over the 
colliery under 
the 
Nationalisation 
Act 
and 
treat the 
petitioner and other workmen as workmen of the Central Govern-
ment and to work the colliery by employing the workmen and to 
~ 
pay them arrears of their wages with effect from April, 1980. 
In support of the petition it was contended: (i) that 
they have been thrown out of emolovment although under s. 14 
-
-
B.K. NAIK v. COAL INDIA LTD. 
1045 
of the Nationalisation Act they continue to be the employees 
-f of the Central Government and are entitled to their wages; and 
(ii) that the said colliery was a coal mine as defined by 
s.2(b) of the Coal Mines (Taking Over of Management) Act 1973 
on the appointed day, namely, 31st January, 1973, but the same 
was not specified in the Schedule to the Act due to some error 
and that since the Central Government had acquired knowledge 
about the existence of the mine it was under a legal duty to 
issue a notified order making declaration about the existence 
-t of such mine and to take over its management. 
On behalf of the respondent No.2 (Coal India - a Govern-
ment company) it was contended: (i) that respondent No.4 had 
obtained lease for extracting coal in the said colliery but he 
~- never extracted coal and there was no coal mine in existence 
either on the date of enforcement of the Management Act or on 
1 the date when the Nationalisation Act came into force; (ii) 
that on receipt of information that respondent No.4 was 
indulging in extracting coal illegally, action was taken 
against him, and after the enforcement of the Coal Mines 
Nationalisation (Amendment) Act, 1976 coal mine leases includ-
ing that of respondent No.4 stood terminated and thereafter he 
was not entitled to carry on any coal mine, (iii) that since 
on the appointed day no coal mine 
existed, there was no 
,;, question of taking over of the mine either under the Manage-
ment Act or under the Nationalisation Act; and (iv) that the 
petitioner and other workmen who may have been employed by 
respondent No.4 have no right to be the 
e~loyees of the 
Central Government or the Government company. 
•''V 
Dismissing the petition, 
l 
llEIJ>: 1. Section 14 of the Coal Mines 
(Nationalisation) 
1 Act, 1973, protects the interest of those workmen who may have 
been working in a coal mine, specified in the Schedule to the 
Act. 'nte employees of a private owner even though working in a 
coal mine are not entitled to be treated employees of the 
Central Government unless the coal mine is nationalised and 
specified in the Schedule to that Act. Since the colliery in 
question was not specified in the Schedule to the Nationalisa-
i tion Act

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.