UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus M/S ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 510 · Decided: 09-08-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
MIS ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR. 
AUGUST 9, 2005 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
Labour Law : Minimum Wages Act, 1948 : 
S. 3(J)(b) rlw ss. 4(J)(iii) and 5(2)-Government of India Ministry of 
Labour Notification No. 514(£) dated 12. 7.1994-Explanation-Paragraph 
7-Clause (iii)-Person working or employed "below ground"-Jnterpretation 
of-Matter remanded to High Court. 
Rex v. Nat Bell Liquor Ltd., (1922) AC 128 and Overseas of the Poor 
of Walsall Overseas v. London & NWR Co., (1879) 4 AC 30, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5920of1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.12.98 of the Orissa High Court 
at Cuttack in O.J.C. No. 8339 of 1994. 
Amarendra Sharan, Additional Solicitor General, Harish Chander, 
T.A. Khan, Amit Anand Tiwari, B.K. Prnsad and Ms. Sushma Suri for the 
Appellants. 
Dushyant Dave, R.R. Kumar, Samyadip Chatterji, Ms. Sangeeta Panicker 
and Bharat Sangal for the Respondents. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. : Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment 
G 
rendered by a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court quashing Clause-iii 
of paragraph 7 of the Explanation in Notification No. 514(E) dated 12.07.1994 
issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in purported exercise 
of powers conferred by Section 3(l)(b) read with Section 4(l)(iii) and 5(2) 
of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act). Stand of the writ 
H 
petitioners before the High Court in the writ petition was that the inclusion 
510 
U.0.1. v. M/S. ESSEL MINING & INDS. LTD. 
511 
sought to be made was impermissible in the background of what has been 
A 
stated in The Mines Act, the Mines Rules and other pieces of legislation 
dealing with mining activities. The relevant portion of the Notification reads 
as follows : 
EXPLANATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE 
NOTIFICATION: 
"A person working or employed in or in connection with a 
mine is said to be working or employed "below ground" if he 
is working or employed :-
(i) 
in a shaft which has been or is in the course of being 
sunk; or 
(ii) 
in any excavation which extends below superjacent 
ground; or 
(iii) 
in an open cast working in which the depth of the 
excavation measured from its highest to its lowest point 
exceeds six metres." 
B 
c 
D 
The High Court held that the authority issuing the Notification overlooked 
E 
that it did not have the source of statutory power to incorporate such 
explanation in the Notification as done and, accordingly, as noted above, held 
that though the Notification was in operaiion, the Clause-( iii) of paragraph 
7 of the Explanation is non est. 
Mr. Amarendra Sharan, learned Additional Solicitor General submitted 
F 
that the High Court failed to notice various facts of the Act and put 
unnecessary stress on the statutes relating to mining activities which had no 
relevance so far as the fixation of minimum wages is concerned. In response, 
Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-
Company submitted that the classification contained in clauses (i) & (ii) of 
paragrah 7 of the Notification do not pose any problem but clause-( iii) which 
was impugned creates a class of employees which is not recognized under 
any statute relating to mining activities and therefore there is no sanctity in 
the Notification so far as that part is concerned. 
G 
We find that though the High Court referred to various statutes relating H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
512 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
to the mining activities, e.g. The Mining Act etc., it did not indicate any 
reason as to why it was of the view that the authority issuing the Notification 
lacked statutory power to issue the Notification. Though the judgment runs 
to several pages, after noticing the rival subl!lissions, the High Court in a very 
cryptic manner, disposed of the writ petition coming to the aforesaid view. 
It is not the number of pages in a judgment which is relevance. It is on the 
other hand, the sufficiency ofreasons indicr\ted to justify the conclusions. We 
may only add here that the paragraphs 28 and 29 of the judgment which are 
supposed to contain the conclusions are not only confusing, but also make 
little sense. They to quote the immortal words of Lord Summer in Rex v. Nat 
Bell Liquors Ltd., (1922) AC 128 "speak only with the inscrutable face of 
a Sphink." It is "unspeaking order" as classically described by1 Lord 

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