THE BALLARPUR COLLIERIES CO. versus STATE INDUSTRIAL COURT, NAGPUR AND OTHERS

Citation: [1966] 2 S.C.R. 589 · Decided: 15-11-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
589 
THE BALLARPUR COLLIERIES CO. 
v. 
STATE INDUSTRIAL COURT, NAGPUR AND OTHERS 
November 15, 1965 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, v. RAMASWAMI 
AND P. SATYANARAYANA RAJU, JJ.) 
Central Provinces and _Bera'r lndustrial Disputes 
Settle111ent 
Act, 
No. 23 of 1947, s. 1(3), Notification under-Certain industries exempted 
from operation of provisions of the flct-Head Office of n1ining com-
pany whether exe1npted. 
The appellant was a mining company with its head office at Nagpur. 
Tue business of the head office was to look after the sale of coal ex-
tracted from the collieries. An employee of· the company working in the 
head office made applications under s. 16 of the Central Provinces and 
Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947, to the A5Sistant Commis-
sioner of Labour, Nagpur. 
The company objected that 
by 
virtue 
of 
the notification under s. 1 (3) of the Act the mining industry had been 
exempted from the operation of the Act including s. 16 and therefore the 
Assistant Labour Commissioner 
had no 
jurisdiction. 
The 
authorities 
under the Act as well as the High Court under Arts. 226 and 227, 
re-
je<;ted the company's contention. 
The High Court took the view that 
what was exempted by the third item in the notification was not the 
head office of a mine but the mine itself and consequently the en1ployees 
of the head office wern governed by the Act. 
The company appealed 
to the Supreme Court by special leave. 
HELD : The notification in question said that the Act would come 
into force on 21st Nuvember, 1947 .. in a11 the industries except the fol-
lowing" and then went on to name four industries, the third one being 
'Mines'. 
After the word 'fol1o\ving' the. word industries must be read 
and thus read the notification in effect sa:d the 
Act v..'ould 
come into 
effect on the given date in all industries except the industries mentioned. 
Therefore it was not only mines but the mining industry itself that \Vas 
exempted from the operation of the Act. [593 A-B, D EJ 
lf the notification exempted the industry of mines or the mining in-
dustry it could not be said that it merely exempted that part of the said 
industry of mines or mining industry \Vhich consisted of raising coaL at the 
colliery and did not include the head office thereof. 
As the. High Court 
said, the head office was part of the integrated activity of the company. 
Therefore when the: mining industry \Vas exempteJ from the operat:on of 
the Act the ex~mP'tion applied not only to that part of the industry which 
consi•ted of raising coal at the colliery but also to that pact of it which 
consisted in the sale of coal and its supply to the customers and would 
thus include the head office also. [593 E-G] 
Mis. Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. v. D. K. Worlikar, A.LR. 1960 
S.C. 842 and Mis. Serajuddin and Co. v. Their Workmen, [1962] 3. Supp. 
S.C.R. 934. distinguished. 
On the above view the Assistant Labour Commissioner had no juris-
H 
diction under the Act to deal with the matter in question. [595 EJ 
CrvrL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : 
Civil Appeal No. 30 of 
1965. 
590 
SUPREME 
COURT 
REPORTS 
[1966] 2 S.C.R. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
A 
. September 8, 1962 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil 
Application No. 364 of 1961. 
C. B. Agarwala, 0. P. Malhotra, J. B. Dadachanji, 0. C. 
Mathur and Ra:vinder Narain, for the appellant. 
G. L. Sangli and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for respondent No. 3. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Wanchoo, J. The only question raised in this appeal by special 
leave is whether the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Dis-
putes Settlement Act, No. XXIII of 1947, (hereinafter referred 
to as the Act) is applicable to the head office of the appellant 
C 
which is known as the Ballarpur Collieries Company. The head 
office is situate in Nagpur and has a staff of about 35 employees. 
The business of the head office is to look after the sale of coal 
extracted from the collieries. 
The question arises in this way. 
Bapat respondent was a 
D 
stenographer working in the head office at Nagpur. 
He was dis-
missed from service on July 31, 1959. It is not necessary for 
present purposes to go into the facts and circumstances leading 
to this dismissal. 
Suffice it to mention that an enquiry was said 
to have been held before the dismissal order was passed. While 
this enquiry was pending Bapat made an application under s. 16 
of the A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.