DHAGAMWAR NARSINGH versus S.S. GREWAL

Citation: [1962] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 32 · Decided: 09-10-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

/[It,) 
Sarkar J, 
32 SUPREME COl.JRT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. 
DHAGAMWAR NARSINGH 
v. 
S.S. GREWAL 
(P. B. 
GA.JE~llRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR, 
K. N. W.\NCHOO and K. C. DAS GUPT.\, JJ.) 
Mine-Appenl-Chi•f l.nbour Officer of Company Termina· 
tion of seroict by cnmpany-Appeal ta Chief ln&pector of Min'8, 
if mainlainablt-Chief Labour Officer, if Wt/fare Oj/ictr-Mint1 
Rule&, J.955, rr. 72, 73 and 74. 
The appellant wa• appointed as the Chief Labour Officer 
by the Company in 1947. 
In December, 195.'\, the company 
terminated his services. 
The appellant, claiming to be a 
W cl fare Ofl'ic.r, preferred an appeal to the Chief Inspector 
of Mines undrr r. 74(2) of the Mines Rules, 1955. 
Ildd, that the appellant was not a Welfare Officer and 
as such coul<l not prefer an appeal under r. 74 (2). The 
Welfare Officer mentioned in r. H (2) is the same officer as 
is mentioned in r. 72 (1) which rule contemplates a Welfare 
Officer appointed in respect of one n1ine. 
But the apprllant 
was an officer of several mines of the Company and not of one 
of such mines only. 
C1v1L APPl:LLATF: JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal 
No. 548 of 1958. 
Appeal hy Special Leave from the judgment 
and order dated March '27, 1957, of the Patna High 
Court in "Misc. Judicial Case ~o. 315 of 1956. 
B. 
Sen, P. W. Sahasralrudhe 
and 
A. rJ. 
Ratnaparkhi. for the Appellant. 
K. L. Ilathi and R. II. 
Dhebar, for Respon. 
dent Vo. I. 
N. C. 
Chatterjee and S. N. ,,fu.kerji, for Ri'S· 
pondent No. 2. 
1961. October 9. The Judgment of the Court 
was clelivcrcd by 
SAHKAR, J.- On September 25, 1947, 
the 
appellant wn.s appointed by respondent No. 2, t.he 
Tata. Iron and SteAI Co., Ltd. ( hereafwr called the 
Company) a.s the Chief Labour Officer of its collier-
ies of which it appears to have a few, and he worked 
.
- " 
( 1) S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
33 
under the Company till the latter terminated his 
Rervices by a notice dated December 5, 1955. On 
such discharge, the appellant, claiming to be a Wel-
fare Officer of a. mine wit.bin r. 7'1(2) of the Mines 
Rules HJ5.3, which rule we shall later set out, filed 
an appeal before respondent No. l, the Chief Inspec-
.. 
tor of MineJ in India, untlor thrit rule questioning 
the validity of his discharge by the Company. The 
Chief Inspector held that the appellant was not a 
Welfare Officer within that rule and refused to 
entertain his appeal. 
The appellant then moved the High Court at 
Patna under Art. 226 of the Constitution for an 
appropriate writ directing tha Chief Inspector to 
,,., 
• 
decide the appeal. The High C:mrt di~missed the 
·. 
appellant's· petition agreeing substantially with the 
-----'.; 
view taken by the Chief Insrector. 
The a.pp•·lhnt 
has now appealed to this Court against the jrnlg-
ment of the High Court. 
The Mines Rules; 1955 were framed under the 
Mines Act, 1952, and came into force on .Tul:v 2, 
19:J5. 
We are principally concerned with the 
proviso to r. 74(2) but this has to be read with r. 72. 
The relevant portions of these ruks are set out. 
below: 
• 
Rule 72. (1) In every mine wherein 500 or 
more persons a.re ordinarily employ<'d l·here 
shall be appointed at least one. Welfare 
Officer:-
Provided that if the number of persons 
ordinarily employed exceeds 2000, there shall 
be appointed additional Welfare Officer on a 
scale of one for every 2000 persons or fract-
ion thereof-
(2) No person shall a.ct as a Welfare 
Officer of a mine unless he possesses-
(Here certain qualifications are specified) 
Provided that in case of a person already 
in service as a Welfare Officer in a mine the 
l:!Gl 
D!iagamwar Na,rSifllh 
v. 
S.S. Grewal 
SQrkar J. 
1961 
lJht;:amwar Nar1in1li 
v. 
S, S, Grtu:al 
Sarlcn1 J. 
34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962] SUPP. • l 
above qualifications may, with the approval 
of the Chief Inspector be relaxed. 
(3) ............•.•..................... \'''''''''"'''' 
(4) A written notire of 
e'vcry such 
appointment ............ and of tho date thereof 
~hall be sent by the owner, agent or manager 
to the Chief Inspector within 7 days from the 
date of such appointment ................ .. 
Rule 73. 
Duties of Welfare Officers : 
...................................................... 
(Here certain duties are prescribed) 
Rule 74. 
(1) ................................... .. 
.. 
(2) Tho conditions of service of a Wei-
• 
fare Officer shall b11 the same aa of other mem-
bers of the staff of corresponding status in the 
1nine; 
Providl'd that in the case of 

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