STATE OF BIHAR versus S. K. ROY

Citation: [1966] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 259 · Decided: 25-04-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
• 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
• 
G 
H 
STATE OF BIHAR 
v. 
S. K. ROY 
April 25, 1966 
[M. HIDAYATULLAH AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] 
259 
Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act, 1948, Sec. 
2(c)-"Employer"-meaning of-by reference to the meaning of an 
"owner", of a "coal mine"-as defined in Sec. 2, Mines Act, 1952. 
The respondent owned a coke plant which originally belonged 
to a group of collieries but was later transferred to hni;. It was 
Situated adjacent to a coal mine on the surface land which formed 
part of the coal fields beneath which the coal mine was worked. The 
respondent did not mine or excavate coal himself nor carry on any 
operation for the purpose of obtaining coal. His coke plant was a 
bye-product Plant in which hard coke as well as some other bye-
products were manufactured. 
The respondent was prosecuted under para 70 of the Coal Mines 
Provident Fund Scheme issued under the Coal 
Mines Provident 
Fund and Bonus Schemes Act, 1948 (Act 46 of 1948) on a complaint 
that as an owner of a coal mine and an employer within the mean-
ing of the Scheme, he had failed to pay certain contributions to the 
Provident Fund. Although he was convicted by the trying Magistrate 
and his appeal to the Sessions Judge dismissed, the High Court al-
lov:ed a Revision Application and set aside the conviction. 
The question .for consideration in the appeal to this Court was 
whether the respondent was an owner of a coal mine within the 
meaning of s. 2 of the Mines Act, 1952 and therefore an employer as 
defined by Section 2(e) of Act 46 of 1948. The expression "coal mine" 
in Section 2(b) of the Mines Act, 1952 means "any excavation where 
any operation fOr the purpose of obtaining coal has been carried on 
and includes all works, machinery, tramways and sidings, 
whe-
ther above or below ground, in or adjacent to or belonging to a coal 
mine". 
HELD: 
The respondent was not the owner of a coal mine within the 
meaning of Section 2(b)' of the Mines Act, 1952 and the High Court 
had rightly acquitted him. [264 C]. 
The expression 
11belonging to a coal mine" is the controlling ex-
pression governing all aspects of the activities of the coal mine v .. rith-
in the definition of s. 2(b) and all subsidiary things such as works, 
machinery, tramways, and sidings are brought within the definition 
of the "coal mine" only if they appertain to the coal mine, that is to 
say, if they are under the same ownership. In order to carry out the 
legislative intention it is therefore necessary to substitute the con-
junction "and" for the Conjunction "or" in the definition of a '
1coal 
mine" in s. 2(b) of the Act. [262 D-E]. 
Section 2(b) of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus 
&hemes (Amendment) Act, 1965 and Ormond Investment Co. Li-
mited v. Betts: 1928 A.C. 143, 156; referred to. 
260 
SUPR<llE COURT REPORTS 
[1966] Sl:PP. R.U.R. 
CRJMl:-;AL APPELLATE 
J~RISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
A 
158 of 1965. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 15, 
1965 of the Rihar High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1326 of 
1963. 
B 
R. H. Dhebar, V. 0. Malwju11 and B. R. G. K. Achar, for the 
appellant. 
N. C. Chatterjee, Supraka1h Ban11erjet and Sukumar Ghose. 
for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Rlllllllswami, J. The question of law presented for detennina-
C 
tion in this appeal is whether the respondent-S. K. Roy-is the 
'owner of a coal mine' within the meaning of s. 2(b) and 2(e) of 
the Coal Mines Provident Flllld and Bonus Schemes Act, 1948 
(Act 46 of 1948), hereinafter ~lied the •Act'. 
The respondent was prosecuted under para 70 of the Coal 
Mines Provident Fund Scheme (hereinafter caUed the 'Scheme') 
D 
for violation of els. (a), (d) and (f) of paragraph 70 read with para-
graphs 33A, 38, 42 and 69A of the Scheme. An Inspector ap· 
pointed under the Act filed a complaint against the respondent 
alleging that he was the owner of the Bhowra Coke Plant and that 
he !rad contravened certain provisions of the Scheme. It was alleged 
that the respondent had failed to pay the contribution for the 
Provident Fund, both employer's and employees' from April, 1960 
E 
to November, 1960 and had failed to submit returns in Fonn "H" 
with corresponding declaration in Form "A" and the statement in 
Ponn •p• as provided under the Regulations. The respondent was 
held ilJilty by the trying Magistrate and was sentenced to pay a 
fine of Rs. 500 and, in default, to undergo 3 months' simple im-
prisonment under

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