# /[It,) Sarkar J, 32 SUPREME COl.JRT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. DHAGAMWAR NARSINGH v. S.S. GREWAL

- **Citation:** [1962] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 32
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 548 of 1958
- **Bench:** P. B. GA.JE~llRAGADKAR, A. K. Sarkar, K. N. W.\Nchoo, K. C. Das Gupt.\
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/it-sarkar-j-32-supreme-col-jrt-reports-1962-supp-dhagamwar-narsingh-v-s-s-grewal-2424
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Mine-Appenl-Chi•f l.nbour Officer of Company Termina·
tion of seroict by cnmpany-Appeal ta Chief ln&pector of Min'8,
if mainlainablt-Chief Labour Officer, if Wt/fare Oj/ictr-Mint1
Rule&, J.955, rr. 72, 73 and 74.
The appellant wa• appointed as the Chief Labour Officer
by the Company in 1947.
In December, 195.'\, the company
terminated his services.
The appellant, claiming to be a
W cl fare Ofl'ic.r, preferred an appeal to the Chief Inspector
of Mines undrr r. 74(2) of the Mines Rules, 1955.
Ildd, that the appellant was not a Welfare Officer and
as such coul<l not prefer an appeal under r. 74 (2). The
Welfare Officer mentioned in r. H (2) is the same officer as
is mentioned in r. 72 (1) which rule contemplates a Welfare
Officer appointed in respect of one n1ine.
But the apprllant
was an officer of several mines of the Company and not of one
of such mines only.
C1v1L APPl:LLATF: JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
No. 548 of 1958.
Appeal hy Special Leave from the judgment
and order dated March '27, 1957, of the Patna High
Court in "Misc. Judicial Case ~o. 315 of 1956.
B.
Sen, P. W. Sahasralrudhe
and
A. rJ.
Ratnaparkhi. for the Appellant.
K. L. Ilathi and R. II.
Dhebar, for Respon.
dent Vo. I.
N. C.
Chatterjee and S. N. ,,fu.kerji, for Ri'S·
pondent No. 2.
1961. October 9. The Judgment of the Court
was clelivcrcd by
SAHKAR, J.- On September 25, 1947,
the
appellant wn.s appointed by respondent No. 2, t.he
Tata. Iron and SteAI Co., Ltd. ( hereafwr called the
Company) a.s the Chief Labour Officer of its collieries of which it appears to have a few, and he worked
.
- "
( 1) S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
33
under the Company till the latter terminated his
Rervices by a notice dated December 5, 1955. On
such discharge, the appellant, claiming to be a Welfare Officer of a. mine wit.bin r. 7'1(2) of the Mines
Rules HJ5.3, which rule we shall later set out, filed
an appeal before respondent No. l, the Chief Inspec-
..
tor of MineJ in India, untlor thrit rule questioning
the validity of his discharge by the Company. The
Chief Inspector held that the appellant was not a
Welfare Officer within that rule and refused to
entertain his appeal.
The appellant then moved the High Court at
Patna under Art. 226 of the Constitution for an
appropriate writ directing tha Chief Inspector to
,,.,
•
decide the appeal. The High C:mrt di~missed the
·.
appellant's· petition agreeing substantially with the
-----'.;
view taken by the Chief Insrector.
The a.pp•·lhnt
has now appealed to this Court against the jrnlgment of the High Court.
The Mines Rules; 1955 were framed under the
Mines Act, 1952, and came into force on .Tul:v 2,
19:J5.
We are principally concerned with the
proviso to r. 74(2) but this has to be read with r. 72.
The relevant portions of these ruks are set out.
below:
•
Rule 72. (1) In every mine wherein 500 or
more persons a.re ordinarily employ<'d l·here
shall be appointed at least one. Welfare
Officer:-
Provided that if the number of persons
ordinarily employed exceeds 2000, there shall
be appointed additional Welfare Officer on a
scale of one for every 2000 persons or fraction thereof-
(2) No person shall a.ct as a Welfare
Officer of a mine unless he possesses-
(Here certain qualifications are specified)
Provided that in case of a person already
in service as a Welfare Officer in a mine the
l:!Gl
D!iagamwar Na,rSifllh
v.
S.S. Grewal
SQrkar J.
1961
lJht;:amwar Nar1in1li
v.
S, S, Grtu:al
Sarlcn1 J.
34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962] SUPP. • l
above qualifications may, with the approval
of the Chief Inspector be relaxed.
(3) ............•.•..................... \'''''''''"''''
(4) A written notire of
e'vcry such
appointment ............ and of tho date thereof
~hall be sent by the owner, agent or manager
to the Chief Inspector within 7 days from the
date of such appointment ................ ..
Rule 73.
Duties of Welfare Officers :
......................................................
(Here certain duties are prescribed)
Rule 74.
(1) .......................

## Text

/[It,)
Sarkar J,
32 SUPREME COl.JRT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
DHAGAMWAR NARSINGH
v.
S.S. GREWAL
(P. B.
GA.JE~llRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR,
K. N. W.\NCHOO and K. C. DAS GUPT.\, JJ.)
Mine-Appenl-Chi•f l.nbour Officer of Company Termina·
tion of seroict by cnmpany-Appeal ta Chief ln&pector of Min'8,
if mainlainablt-Chief Labour Officer, if Wt/fare Oj/ictr-Mint1
Rule&, J.955, rr. 72, 73 and 74.
The appellant wa• appointed as the Chief Labour Officer
by the Company in 1947.
In December, 195.'\, the company
terminated his services.
The appellant, claiming to be a
W cl fare Ofl'ic.r, preferred an appeal to the Chief Inspector
of Mines undrr r. 74(2) of the Mines Rules, 1955.
Ildd, that the appellant was not a Welfare Officer and
as such coul<l not prefer an appeal under r. 74 (2). The
Welfare Officer mentioned in r. H (2) is the same officer as
is mentioned in r. 72 (1) which rule contemplates a Welfare
Officer appointed in respect of one n1ine.
But the apprllant
was an officer of several mines of the Company and not of one
of such mines only.
C1v1L APPl:LLATF: JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
No. 548 of 1958.
Appeal hy Special Leave from the judgment
and order dated March '27, 1957, of the Patna High
Court in "Misc. Judicial Case ~o. 315 of 1956.
B.
Sen, P. W. Sahasralrudhe
and
A. rJ.
Ratnaparkhi. for the Appellant.
K. L. Ilathi and R. II.
Dhebar, for Respon.
dent Vo. I.
N. C.
Chatterjee and S. N. ,,fu.kerji, for Ri'S·
pondent No. 2.
1961. October 9. The Judgment of the Court
was clelivcrcd by
SAHKAR, J.- On September 25, 1947,
the
appellant wn.s appointed by respondent No. 2, t.he
Tata. Iron and SteAI Co., Ltd. ( hereafwr called the
Company) a.s the Chief Labour Officer of its collieries of which it appears to have a few, and he worked
.
- "
( 1) S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
33
under the Company till the latter terminated his
Rervices by a notice dated December 5, 1955. On
such discharge, the appellant, claiming to be a Welfare Officer of a. mine wit.bin r. 7'1(2) of the Mines
Rules HJ5.3, which rule we shall later set out, filed
an appeal before respondent No. l, the Chief Inspec-
..
tor of MineJ in India, untlor thrit rule questioning
the validity of his discharge by the Company. The
Chief Inspector held that the appellant was not a
Welfare Officer within that rule and refused to
entertain his appeal.
The appellant then moved the High Court at
Patna under Art. 226 of the Constitution for an
appropriate writ directing tha Chief Inspector to
,,.,
•
decide the appeal. The High C:mrt di~missed the
·.
appellant's· petition agreeing substantially with the
-----'.;
view taken by the Chief Insrector.
The a.pp•·lhnt
has now appealed to this Court against the jrnlgment of the High Court.
The Mines Rules; 1955 were framed under the
Mines Act, 1952, and came into force on .Tul:v 2,
19:J5.
We are principally concerned with the
proviso to r. 74(2) but this has to be read with r. 72.
The relevant portions of these ruks are set out.
below:
•
Rule 72. (1) In every mine wherein 500 or
more persons a.re ordinarily employ<'d l·here
shall be appointed at least one. Welfare
Officer:-
Provided that if the number of persons
ordinarily employed exceeds 2000, there shall
be appointed additional Welfare Officer on a
scale of one for every 2000 persons or fraction thereof-
(2) No person shall a.ct as a Welfare
Officer of a mine unless he possesses-
(Here certain qualifications are specified)
Provided that in case of a person already
in service as a Welfare Officer in a mine the
l:!Gl
D!iagamwar Na,rSifllh
v.
S.S. Grewal
SQrkar J.
1961
lJht;:amwar Nar1in1li
v.
S, S, Grtu:al
Sarlcn1 J.
34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962] SUPP. • l
above qualifications may, with the approval
of the Chief Inspector be relaxed.
(3) ............•.•..................... \'''''''''"''''
(4) A written notire of
e'vcry such
appointment ............ and of tho date thereof
~hall be sent by the owner, agent or manager
to the Chief Inspector within 7 days from the
date of such appointment ................ ..
Rule 73.
Duties of Welfare Officers :
......................................................
(Here certain duties are prescribed)
Rule 74.
(1) ................................... ..
..
(2) Tho conditions of service of a Wei-
•
fare Officer shall b11 the same aa of other members of the staff of corresponding status in the
1nine;
Providl'd that in the case of discharge or
d;smissal, tho Welfare Officer, shall have a
right of appeal to the Chief Inspector whose
dedsion thereon shall ho final and binding
~
upon tho owner, agent or manager of the
mine as the case may be.
Tho Chief Inspector mentioned in these Rules is the
Chief Inspector of Mines in India.
If the appellant was not a Welfare Officer
wit.bin the proviso to r. 74(2) as the company contend~. then, of course, no appeal by him lay under
it. H1 would then oloarly not be entitled to the
writ ho asked. Tho quPstion therefore is who-
.,.
ther the appellant was a Welfare Officer within the
rule and is really one of construction of it.
We desire now to point out certain facts as to
which there is no co:1tr'.lversy.
First, both the Act
and tl}e Rules came into force long after:thc appellant had been appointe'.l by tho;Company. Secondly
no relaxation of qualifications had beon sought from
or granted by tho Chief Inspector with r•,cpoot to
( l) S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
35
th~ appelhnt under the proviso to sub-r. (2) of r. 72 ·
af03r t,h·i R1hs ctmq into force. Thirdly, no notice
as conte:nplated in r. 72(4) had been given concerning the appellant. It appears that the Chief Insp.:ictor found that the appellant "was performing
duties akin to those of Welfare Officers contemplated by rule 73 and he was qualified to work as a.
Welfare Offi0er." We propose to deal with this
appeal on the basis of these findings.
' Dealing with the contention noticed by the
Chie'f InKpector and the High Court that a Welfare
Officer under r. 74(2) is one who is appointed after
the Rules came-into force, Mr. Sen for the appellant'
said that
a.
person like the appellant who
had the rcquisit o qualifications and was discharging the <lut;ies prescribed for a Welfare Officer from
before the Ruh·s came into force, would be :t Welfare Officer within them. He pointed out that the
proviso to sub-r. (2) of r. 72 clearly contemplated
tho eontinnance of the serrice of such a person as
a Welfare Officer with relaxation where such was
necessary and was granted. He also said that
sub-r. (4) of r. 72 was inapplicable to Auch a person
becauso he had been appointed long ago and because
the proviso to r. 72(2) indicated that its application was not intended. We do not think it necessary to pronounce on this question in the present
case.
I.1 our view, the appeal must fail even if
Mt'. Sen's contention is right and that for another
reason.
We observe that the Rules do not define the
•
term ''\Velfare Officer". But we think it is beyond
doubt-'tnd indeed the contrary has not been contend·Jd that the Welfare Officer mentioned in the
proviso to r. 74(2) is the same officer as is mentioned
iu sub-r (l) of r. 72. Now it is, in our view, perfectly
plain that the Welfare Officer contemplated by
r. 72\ 1) is such an officer of one mine. The rule
says that th ore shall be. at least one Welfare Officer
for every mine employmg between 500 and 2000
persons and this makes anr other view impossible,
11161
Dhagamwar N arsingh
v.
S.S. Grt-wal
Sarkar J.
Ifl61
flhagamwar i.· ar slntli
v.
S.S. <htwal
Sar/car J,
l!Ml
Octol1r JO.
36 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.
As we understood Mr. Sen, he also accepted that
the Welfare Officer contemplated is one appointed
in respect of one mine. Now, the appellant was on
his own case, the Welfare Officer of several mines of
the Company and not of one of such mines only.
Therefore, we think that he was not a Welfare
Officer within r. 72(1) and hence not within the proviso to r. 74(2).
But Mr. Sen contends that the appellant
might be considered as having been severally and
inclepcndently appointed the Welfare Officer of each
of thP- Company's several collieries in his charge.
'We think that that would be an impos8ible view to
take. One appointment cannot be treated as
several appointments and it .is not in dispute that
the appellant had only one appointment for all the
Company's collieries.
We think that this appeal fails and we dismiss
it with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
WORKMEN OF THE BOMBAY PORT TRC'ST
v.
TRUSTEES OF PORT OF BOMBA y
(K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAs GUPTA and
J. c. SHAH, J.J.)
•
,.
[ndu,trial Di.opute-JVag,.-If payable for Sunday IM
''l·reekly off" day on uihich no 1r.ork was do"'- and for .<;unda~ 011
which worl: 1c<ZR dom without compnnatory nJI day-1/nte-Week/y
I'
holi<lay, meaning of-Minimum Wag,. Ar.I, W48 (XI~( J.948),
.<.13-Minimum Wages Rulu, r. 23.
The Minimum
Wages Act, 194-8, and the Minimum
\\'ages Rules, framed thereunder, laid down the principle that
the Government should provide f'or a day of1cst to the workers
for every period of 7 days and also to make provisions for making some payment in connection therewith. The dispute
between the workers and employers oft he present cruc related
to (a) arrears of wages for Sunday, the "weekly off" day on
which no work was done and (b) arrears of wages for work