LexDBJAPADA DAS AND ANR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
, 586 A DBJAPADA DAS AND ANR v. UNION° OF INDIA AND ORS. April 11, 1980 8 [V. R. KRISHNA IYER, 0. C!IINNAPPA REDDY AND A. P. SEN, JJ.] Coal Mines (IValionalisation Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act No. LXVll of 1976), Sections 3 (3) and 4, scope of-Whether Section 3 (3) offends Article 14 of the Cons;itution, inasmuch as in regard to Coal Mines, lVhere nlinuzg is prohibited by that provision, the work1nen are left in the cold, while in regard to nationalised coal n1ines the workmen are taken care of and benefits assured C -Private managements whether "deenzed custodians" under Section 5 of the Coal Mines Nationalist;itions Act, 1973. D E F G H Dismissing the Writ Petitions, the Court, HELD : I. The provision contained in Section 3 ( 3) of Act LXVIl of 1976 is peremptory and the prohibition is mandatory because there is punish- ment provided for contravention of that provision. Breach of Section 3 (3) is made punishable with impriso!1lll<nt. The 1976 Act totally prohibits w<>rking of any coal mines by any agency other than those which have been set out in Section 3 ( 3). Surely, there is no authority for the managements under whom the present petitioners are alleged to be workmen to operate coal mines in the face of the prohibition of the 1976 Act. Even for granting looses and their renewal by ;the State itself, the frown and force of the law stand four square between the mines and ~traction of coal by any but the agencies specified in section 3 (3) of the 1976 Act. [589F-G, 591A, B & CJ 2. Investigation of the Sta.te or . intimation by the private managements are obligatory under the appropriate legislation and in the absence of any iittima.. tion the presumption is that there are no such coal mines as are set up before the Court. What apparently has been done, if at all, is to d<> what has been described as 'scratching' that is sudace mining of coal bearing areas, destmc- tive of 1the natural resources of the nation without any thought for the morrow and without any reference to the pla.nned, phased programme of exploitation of coal for the benefit of the country in the public sector. The mines, if any, are illicitly being operated, there being no sanction of the law. It is precisely Ito prevent this mischief of slaugter mining that s.3 (3) was introduced and s.4 was enacted to make the activity punishable. 'I'he proscription is comprehen· sive and the penalty makes it imperative. When it is accepted that it is not permissible to operate these mines save by those specified in the 1976 stah1te, it necessarily follows that workmen, genuine or other, cannot claim any funda- mental right to work these mines,, [5910-G] 3. The prohibition of mining as under s. 3(3) of the 1976 Act, is in the pub- lic interest and indeed, the scheme shows that wherever public interest requires exploitation of coal mines it has been permitted in the public sector and even in the priva.te sector so far as certain specified industries, such as iron and steel industries, are concerned. The ban is part of a national policy, conceived for conservation of a vital national resource and the wisdom of the regulation of fl.. DEJAPADA DAS v. UNION 587 fuel spurces and their planned user is beyond argument. Therefore, the language of s. 3 (3) is express, explicit and admits. of no exception. An aware Court will not relax when the language is peremptory, the legislation is charged with a critical purpose and even the commiserative cause of work- men-not wolves in sheep's clothing,-cannot override ithe larger cause of the nation. No nation, no workmen. [59!G-H, 592A] 4. It is audacious for the dubious managements under whom the petitioners are supposed to be innocent workmen to represent to the Court that they are "deemed custodians" working on behalf of the Central Government. [592D-E] Under section 5, notifications are a sine qua non fori custodianship, actual or deemed and absent such notification taking over management no private agency can self-style. itself as "deemed custOOian". Therefore, the manage· ments.other than those specified in section 3(3) of the 1976 Act, can not claim to extract coal from any coal mines. If this be so, no one can . cla.im as a workman. although in public interest, although it is imperative that such ope- ration 'should stop. [593E-F] · S. There is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution vis·a·vis the workmen concerned assuming them to be
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.