LexLABOUR INSPECTOR, CENTRAL versus THE CHITTAPORE STONE QUARRYING CO. (P) LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
r .A 0 D E F G H 83 LABOUR INSPECTOR, CENTRAL v. THE CHITTAPORE STONE QUARRYING CO. (P) LTD. & ORS. April 5, 1972 [C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, D. G. PALEKAR AND K. K. MATHEW, JJ.J Minimum Wages Act 1948, Item 8 of Part No. 1 of Schedule- Stone-breaking and stone crushing, meaning of-Slurhabad stone, quarrying of-Whe1;1er en1p[oy1nent in stone breaking and sf.one crushing. The Minimum Wag'S Act 1948 was enacted to provide m1n1mum rates of wages in certain employment mentioned in the Schedule. Item No. 8 of part No. I of the Sch•,dule refers to em- ployment in stone~breaking or stoOe crushing. By notification under the Act minimum wJ.ges was fixed for those ·.employed in stone breaking or stone crushing in Gulbarga District, Mysore State. The appellant Inspector was of :he view that respondent No. l which was quarryin; a variety of ston·~ c'alled Shahabad ~tone in Gulbarga District was enguged in the activity of stone hreaking and stone crushing und since respondent No. l was in breach of some of the provisions of the Act and the rules made thcreund~r he adopt·~d proceedings to enforce the provisions in the court of the Munsif Magistrate. Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition in the High Court for quashing the said p'roceedings contending that its activity was not one of stone bri~aking or stone crushing but of n1ining limestone slabs. According to him after removing the layers of earth and the thick layers of limestone thin layers of limestone were hfought out and the!:i.: wer1:: then cut up into regular sizes and this did not amount to stone breaking or stone crushing. The High Court held that removing Shahaoad stone involved breaking and crushing but on the view that what was broken or c~ushed was not 'stone' but in the nature of a mineral quashed ttr.: proceedings. In -appeal by ce·rtificate, HELD: Per Vaidialingam and Palekar, JJ. Stone breaking and stone crus~ing in relation to limestone is that activity in which non-strat_ifie<l limestone, recognised as rock, is brok~n or crushed into irregular trag- ments or sizes and then marketed or otherwise used. The more valuable and rar.:!r ~tratified limestone \Vhich is suitable fo'r use as din1cnsion stone is not the stone commercially exploited for breaking and crushing. Hence the employrr.•!nt of quarrying Shahabad stone is not the same as the sche· duled employn1ent of ston.e breaking or stone crushing ~eferred to in item 8 of the Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act. The High Court was, therefore right in quash;ng the proceedings. [87 A·Cl 1\/adln•a p, adesli Minerc;f Industry Association v. The Regional Labour Commissioner Jabalpur and Ors., [19601 3 S.C.R. ·476, applied. Per Mathew, J. (dissenting) There is no distinction between stone ob- tained by crushing ur breaking of non-stratified rock and that obtail1'>d bv cutting stratified rock, for 'the purpose of construing the word 'stone' in item No. 8 as done obtained in both the cases is a piece of rock. • [88Hl ln Vcnkatara1naniyas Law Lexicon and in the Shorti:r Oxford Dic- tionary quarrying is dr~fincd to include cutting. When this Court in the cases of Mohanr1L Devichand Slu1h and Madliva Prcdesh Mineral Industry 84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ( 1973] l S.C.R. Association said that employment in stone-breaking or stone-crushing refer to "quarry operation" this Court was fully alive to the procbs in- volved in quarry operation. [90F-HJ It must therefdre be held that employment in quarrying operation for extraction of Shahabad stone is employment within the a:nbit of item A 8 of Part I of the Scbednle. l'.91BI B Madhya Prad~sh Mining Industry Association v. The Regional Labour Commissioner, Jabalpur and Ors., [1960] 3 S.C.R. 476, Ray Limestone and Co. v. Sub-DivisionCJ/ Officer, Ranchi, A.LR. 1968 Patna 39 and State of Maharashtra v. Mohan/al Devichand Shah, [1965] 3 S.C,R. 461, refe'rred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 40 of c 1968. Appeal from the judgm<'!lt and order dated July 25, 1967 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No. 1860 of 1965. R. H. Dhebar, for the appellant. K. Srinivasamur~hy and Naunit L,al, for respondent No. 1. R. B. Datar, for respondent No. 2. The Judgment of Vaidialingam and Palekar, JJ. was delivered bf Palekar, J. Mathew, J. delivered a dissenting opinion. Palekar, J. This appeal by certificate granted !Jy the High Court of Mysore raises an interesting poi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.