MOHAN LAL GOENKA AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1962] 2 S.C.R. 36 · Decided: 18-04-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

36 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
r96r 
the fluctuating amount the donees had to pay, the 
Ab . 
-h -
permanent nature of the charity and the declared 
inas Chandra . 
t' 
of h 
J!anneri 
mten ion 
t e testator to pay as much as half the 
v. 
1 
net income towards the carrying out of the said charit-
u11"'pa.a 
able object, we hold that the legal heirs took, the pro-
llitakari Sabha perty of the testator subject to a trust rather than a 
chavge. 
Subba Rao /. 
No other question arises in this appeal. For the 
foregoing reasons, we hold that the conclusion arrived 
at by the High Court is correct. In the result, the 
appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. 
I961 
April I8. 
Appeal dismissed. 
MOHAN LAL GOENKA AND ANOTHER 
v. 
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
(B. P. SINHA, 0. J., s. K. DAS, K. 0. DAS GUPTA, 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR and 
J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Mining-Regulations providing Crechcs for women employees 
in mines-Breach of-Liability of owner, agent and manager-
I ndian Mines Act, x923 (4 of x923), cl. (bb) s. 30--Jndion Mines 
Act, r952, (35 of r952), els. (r)(z) s. r8, cl. (d) s. 58--Mincs Creche 
Rules, r946, sub-r. (I), r. 7-Gcneral Clauses Act, r897 (Act X of 
r897), s, 24. 
The appellants one of whom was the owner and the other 
the manager of a colliery were convicted for contravening tbe 
provisions of the l\lines Creche Rules, 1946, under which the 
onwer of every mine employing women was required to const1 uct 
creches for the use of the women employees and also to appoint 
a "Creche-in-charge" for the supervision of the creches. Their 
contentions mainly were (1) that the Mines Creche Rules, 1946 
stood repealed as the Mines Act, 1923 itself under which those 
rules were framed were repealed hy the Mines Act of 1952 and 
(2) that the said rules having been framed under s. 3o(bb) of 
the Mines Act, 1923, could not be deemed to be rules made under 
the corresponding s. 58(d) of the 1952 Act the requirements of 
which were different .from those of s. 3o(bb) of the 1923 Act. On 
' 
behalf of the manager a further contention was raised that he 
was not liable for the contravention of r. 7(1) under which he 
' 
t 
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
37 
had no duty to perform and no question of his omission to 
appoint a creche-in-charge arose. 
Held, per Sinha, C. J., S. K. Das, Das Gupta and Ayyan-
gar, JJ., that the regulations framed under s. 30 of the Mines 
Act, r923, survived the repeal of that Act. 
Criminal Appeals Nos. 90 to ro6 of r959, followed. 
The Mines Creche Rules, 1946, framed under s. 3o(bb) of 
the Mines Act of 1923 covered a part of the ground that was 
covered by the provisions of s. 58(d) of the Mines Act of 1952, 
and to the extent the provisions of the two enactments overlap 
each other these rules would continue to be in force by virtue 
of s. 24 of the General Clauses Act and operate as rules under 
the 1952 Act. 
Contravention of r. 7 of the Mines Creche Rules, 
1946, was in law contravention of a rule under s. 58(d) of the 
1952 Act within the meaning of s. 73 of the Act. 
Under s. 18(1) of the Mines Act, 1952, the manager, the 
agent and the owner are responsible for observance of the Mines 
Creche Rules which form part of the conditions of employment 
of female labour engaged in "mining operations" and•under sub-
s. (2) of s. rS each of them shall be deemed to be guilty of the 
contfavention of any rule by "any pers0n whosoever'', unless he 
proves that he took all reasonable means to prevent such con-
travention. 
The manager in the present case not having proved 
that he took all reasonable means to prevent the contravention 
of r. 7 by the owner even though the rule in terms laid no duty 
on him, must be deemed to be guilty of the contravention. 
State Government, M. P. v. Deodatta Diddi, A.LR. (1956) Nag. 
71, held inapplicable. 
c;. D. Bhattar v. State, A.1.R. (19:ii) Cal. 483, the view 
making the manager liable to be approved. 
Per Mudholkar, J. - In the mining industry a "mining 
operation'', as contemplated under s. 18 of the Mines Act, is 
understood to mean an operation undertaken for the purpose of 
mining minerals and cannot be extended to mean "management 
of mines"· such as employment of labour and providing ameni-
ties to employees etc. 
The manager of a mine cannot be made 
vicariously liable for the omission of the OYi'ner to carry out his 
own duty 1inder r. 7(1) of the Mines Creche Rules. Sub-s. (2) of 
s. 18 would also absolve the manager from vicariuus liabili
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.