# MIS. DAMODAR MANGALJI AND CO. ETC v. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR FEBRUARY27, 2001

- **Citation:** [2001] 2 S.C.R. 182
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2001
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 8890of1997
- **Bench:** S. Rajendra Babu, S.N. Phukan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mis-damodar-mangalji-and-co-etc-v-the-regional-director-february27-2001-17848
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Employees State Insurance Act I 948/Mines Act J 952-Section 2(1 ),
2(12)/2(a)(i)-"Appropriate government" and "mines"-Scope of-Wonf
'mine' confines to case concerning a mine where extraction of ores actually
takes place and not office-Furthe1; the appropriate Gorernment in respect of
such offices is the State Government.
Mines of the appellant is situated at 'P' and office of the mines is at
Sanquelin. Payment to the staff and workers is made through the office at
Sanquelin. But the mining operations and incidental work is done at Pisarlen
and head office• of the establishment is at Panaji. Government of Goa,
Daman & Diu issued a notification under the Employee's State Insurance
Act, 1948, which is under challenge.
Appellant contended before this court that the notification was not
E
applicable to the mining industry because the appropriate Government in
.,..
F
G
respect of mines was the Central Government and not the State Government. The expression 'mine' under section 2(1) of the ESI Act read with
expression 'in respect of' would include the area where extraction of ores
takes place and the other offices.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1.1. The expression 'mine' under section 2(a)(i) of the
Mines Act, 1952 confines to case concerning a mine where extraction of
ores takes place and not offices or the other parts of establishment.
Further the expression 'the appropriate Government' in 'the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 is identical with the expression •tt.e appropriate
Government' defined under the Mines Act, 1952.[184-A-E]
Mis. Sc.rajuddin and Co. v. Their Workmen, [1962] Supp. 3 SCR 934,
H
held applicable.
182
I
~
'
DAMODAR MANGAUI v. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR [R. BABU, l.] 183
T1ie Ballarpur Colleries Co. v. State Industrial Court, Nagpur and Ors.,
A
[1966) 2 SCR 589, distinguished.

## Text

A
B
c
D
MIS. DAMODAR MANGALJI AND CO. ETC.
v.
THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR
FEBRUARY27, 2001
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.]
Employees State Insurance Act I 948/Mines Act J 952-Section 2(1 ),
2(12)/2(a)(i)-"Appropriate government" and "mines"-Scope of-Wonf
'mine' confines to case concerning a mine where extraction of ores actually
takes place and not office-Furthe1; the appropriate Gorernment in respect of
such offices is the State Government.
Mines of the appellant is situated at 'P' and office of the mines is at
Sanquelin. Payment to the staff and workers is made through the office at
Sanquelin. But the mining operations and incidental work is done at Pisarlen
and head office• of the establishment is at Panaji. Government of Goa,
Daman & Diu issued a notification under the Employee's State Insurance
Act, 1948, which is under challenge.
Appellant contended before this court that the notification was not
E
applicable to the mining industry because the appropriate Government in
.,..
F
G
respect of mines was the Central Government and not the State Government. The expression 'mine' under section 2(1) of the ESI Act read with
expression 'in respect of' would include the area where extraction of ores
takes place and the other offices.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1.1. The expression 'mine' under section 2(a)(i) of the
Mines Act, 1952 confines to case concerning a mine where extraction of
ores takes place and not offices or the other parts of establishment.
Further the expression 'the appropriate Government' in 'the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 is identical with the expression •tt.e appropriate
Government' defined under the Mines Act, 1952.[184-A-E]
Mis. Sc.rajuddin and Co. v. Their Workmen, [1962] Supp. 3 SCR 934,
H
held applicable.
182
I
~
'
DAMODAR MANGAUI v. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR [R. BABU, l.] 183
T1ie Ballarpur Colleries Co. v. State Industrial Court, Nagpur and Ors.,
A
[1966) 2 SCR 589, distinguished.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8890of1997.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.2.97 of the Mumbai High Court
in F.A. No. 88 of 1988.
,,
wrrn
Civil Appeal No. 8891 of 1997.
B
R.F. Nariman, Pratap Venugopal, P.S. Sudheer, K.J. John, for the AppelC
!ants.
V.J. Francis and Ms. Sheela Goel, for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
RAJENDRA BABU, J. C.A.No.8890/97
The appellant before us is aggrieved by the application of the notification
dated 21.6.1977 issued by the Government of Goa, Daman & Diu under :he
Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'].
The.appellant raised a contention that since they are engaged in mining indusE
try and as a part of the integrated activity of such industry have an oflice away
from the mines as such. The contention put forth before the ES! Court is that
the said notification, in so far as it is applicable to a mining industry, is beyond
the scope of the Act for the reason that "the appropriate Government" means,
in respect of the establishment under the control of the Central Government or
a railway administration or a major port or a mine or oilfield, the Central
Government, and in other cases, it is the State Government. The submission
made on behalf of the appellant is that the expression "mine" used in Section
2(1) of the Act has to be read along with the expressions such as "in respect
F
of' and read so, would mean not only the area where extraction of ores takes
place, but also the other oftices and that the enactment itself intends to make
G.
a distinction, it.has so been made as is clear from Section 2(12) which defines
the expression "factmy", and mine which is subject to tl1e operation of tl1e
Mines Act, 1952 is excluded from the purview of the Act and placed heavy
reliance on the decision of this Court in The Ballarpur Collieries Co. v. State
Industrial Court, Nagpur & Ors., [1966] 2 SCR 589. On behalf of the respondH
184
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2001] 2 S.C.R.
A
cnt, strong reliance is placed upon the decision in Mis Serajuddin & Co. v.
-~
B
c
D
E
F
G
Their Workmen, (1962) Supp. 3 SCR 934, where the specific question what is
the appropriate Government has been considered and held the expression
"mine" used in Section 2(a)(i) of the Mines Act, 1952 to confine only to those
cases where it really concerns a mine where extraction of ores actually talces
place as defined under the Mines Act and not other parts of the establishment.
In the present case, the mines is situated at Pisurlen and the office of the
mine at Sanquelin. The payment of the staff and workers is made through the
office at Sanqnelin while the mining operations and the incidental work is done
at Pisurlen. The Head Office of the establishment is at Panaji.
In The Balla1purCollieries Co. 's case [supra] this Court was concerned
with a notification which stated that the Act would come into force on
21.11.1947 "in all industries except the following" and then went on to name
four industries, the third one being 'mines'. This Court held that alter the word
'following' the word "industries' must be read and thus read the notification
in effect said the Act would come into effect on the given date in all industries
except the industries mentioned. Therefore, it was held that it is not only
mines but the mining industry itself that was exempted from the operation of
the Act. In Mis Serajuddin & Co. 's case [supra] the dispute. relating to the
. Head Office of a mining company was referred to the Industrial Tribunal by
the West Bengal Government under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was
held that the West Bengal Government was the appropriate Government and
the decision turned on the interpretation of Section 2(a)(i) of the ID Act which
defines 'the appropriate Government'. The crucial words that fell for interpretation were '"in relation to an industrial dispute concerning a banking or
insurance company or mine or an oilfield or a major port". It was held that
the word 'mine' as used in Section 2(a)(i) of the ID Act referred to a mine
as defined in the Mines Act and that a dispute with reference to the Head
Office of the mine \vas not a dispute concerning a mine which must n1ean
mine as defined under the Mines Act. Therefore, this Court, having interpreted the expression 'the appropriate Government' in the Industrial Disputes
Act in Mis Serajuddin & Co. 's case [supra) which is identical with the
expression 'the appropriate Government' as defined under the Act, we think
the view talcen by the High Court is correct and calls for no interference. This
appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. No Costs.
C.A.No.8891197
H
In this matter questions arising for consideration are identical to those
l>AMODAR MANGALJI v. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR [R. BABU, J.] 185
~
arose in C.A.No.8890/97. Following the decision therein, this appeal also
A
stands dismissed.
..
I.A. is filed by one of the Workmen-Union in support of the case of the
appellant. Inasmuch as we have considered the contentions of the impleading
applicant also along with that of the appellant and have allowed the said
applicant to intervene in the matter, impleadment is unnecessary. The I.A.· is
B
disposed of accordingly.
N.J .
Appeals dismissed.