# MOHAN LAL GOENKA AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

- **Citation:** [1962] 2 S.C.R. 36
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1957
- **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, s. K. DAS, K. 0. Das Gupta, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, J. R. MuDHOLKAR
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mohan-lal-goenka-and-another-v-the-state-of-west-bengal-2258
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

Mining-Regulations providing Crechcs for women employees
in mines-Breach of-Liability of owner, agent and managerI ndian Mines Act, x923 (4 of x923), cl. (bb) s. 30--Jndion Mines
Act, r952, (35 of r952), els. (r)(z) s. r8, cl. (d) s. 58--Mincs Creche
Rules, r946, sub-r. (I), r. 7-Gcneral Clauses Act, r897 (Act X of
r897), s, 24.
The appellants one of whom was the owner and the other
the manager of a colliery were convicted for contravening tbe
provisions of the l\lines Creche Rules, 1946, under which the
onwer of every mine employing women was required to const1 uct
creches for the use of the women employees and also to appoint
a "Creche-in-charge" for the supervision of the creches. Their
contentions mainly were (1) that the Mines Creche Rules, 1946
stood repealed as the Mines Act, 1923 itself under which those
rules were framed were repealed hy the Mines Act of 1952 and
(2) that the said rules having been framed under s. 3o(bb) of
the Mines Act, 1923, could not be deemed to be rules made under
the corresponding s. 58(d) of the 1952 Act the requirements of
which were different .from those of s. 3o(bb) of the 1923 Act. On
'
behalf of the manager a further contention was raised that he
was not liable for the contravention of r. 7(1) under which he
'
t
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
37
had no duty to perform and no question of his omission to
appoint a creche-in-charge arose.
Held, per Sinha, C. J., S. K. Das, Das Gupta and Ayyangar, JJ., that the regulations framed under s. 30 of the Mines
Act, r923, survived the repeal of that Act.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 90 to ro6 of r959, followed.
The Mines Creche Rules, 1946, framed under s. 3o(bb) of
the Mines Act of 1923 covered a part of the ground that was
covered by the provisions of s. 58(d) of the Mines Act of 1952,
and to the extent the provisions of the two enactments overlap
each other these rules would continue to be in force by virtue
of s. 24 of the General Clauses Act and operate as rules under
the 1952 Act.
Contravention of r. 7 of the Mines Creche Rules,
1946, was in law contravention of a rule under s. 58(d) of the
1952 Act within the meaning of s. 73 of the Act.
Under s. 18(1) of the Mines Act, 1952, the manager, the
agent and the owner are responsible for observance of the Mines
Creche Rules which form part of the conditions of employment
of female labour engaged in "mining operations" and•under subs. (2) of s. rS each of them shall be deemed to be guilty of the
contfavention of any rule by "any pers0n whosoever'', unless he
proves that he took all reasonable means to prevent such contravention.
The manager in the present case not having proved
that he took all reasonable means to prevent the contravention
of r. 7 by the owner even though the rule in terms laid no duty
on him, must be deemed to be guilty of the contravention.
State Government, M. P. v. Deodatta Diddi, A.LR. (1956) Nag.
71, held inapplicable.
c;. D. Bhattar v. State, A.1.R. (19:ii) Cal. 483, the view
making the manager liable to be approved.
Per Mudholkar, J. - In the mining industry a "mining
operation'', as contemplated under s. 18 of the Mines Act, is
understood to mean an operation undertaken for the purpose of
mining minerals and cannot be extended to mean "management
of mines"· such as employment of labour and providing amenities to employees etc.
The manager of a mine cannot be made
vicariously liable for the omission of the OYi'ner to carry out his
own duty 1inder r. 7(1) of the Mines Creche Rules. Sub-s. (2) of
s. 18 would also absolve the manager from vicariuus liability if
he could show "that he had taken all reasonable means by publishing and to the best of his power enforcing those provisions to
prevent such contravention". But there is nothing in the Act or
the rules which empowers the manager to enforce the performance by the owner of his duty under sub-r. (r) of r. 7 of the
Mines C:re<;he Rules and the manager was therefore not liable
for the breach of that rule.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDIC

## Text

36
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
r96r
the fluctuating amount the donees had to pay, the
Ab .
-h -
permanent nature of the charity and the declared
inas Chandra .
t'
of h
J!anneri
mten ion
t e testator to pay as much as half the
v.
1
net income towards the carrying out of the said charitu11"'pa.a
able object, we hold that the legal heirs took, the prollitakari Sabha perty of the testator subject to a trust rather than a
chavge.
Subba Rao /.
No other question arises in this appeal. For the
foregoing reasons, we hold that the conclusion arrived
at by the High Court is correct. In the result, the
appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
I961
April I8.
Appeal dismissed.
MOHAN LAL GOENKA AND ANOTHER
v.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
(B. P. SINHA, 0. J., s. K. DAS, K. 0. DAS GUPTA,
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR and
J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.)
Mining-Regulations providing Crechcs for women employees
in mines-Breach of-Liability of owner, agent and managerI ndian Mines Act, x923 (4 of x923), cl. (bb) s. 30--Jndion Mines
Act, r952, (35 of r952), els. (r)(z) s. r8, cl. (d) s. 58--Mincs Creche
Rules, r946, sub-r. (I), r. 7-Gcneral Clauses Act, r897 (Act X of
r897), s, 24.
The appellants one of whom was the owner and the other
the manager of a colliery were convicted for contravening tbe
provisions of the l\lines Creche Rules, 1946, under which the
onwer of every mine employing women was required to const1 uct
creches for the use of the women employees and also to appoint
a "Creche-in-charge" for the supervision of the creches. Their
contentions mainly were (1) that the Mines Creche Rules, 1946
stood repealed as the Mines Act, 1923 itself under which those
rules were framed were repealed hy the Mines Act of 1952 and
(2) that the said rules having been framed under s. 3o(bb) of
the Mines Act, 1923, could not be deemed to be rules made under
the corresponding s. 58(d) of the 1952 Act the requirements of
which were different .from those of s. 3o(bb) of the 1923 Act. On
'
behalf of the manager a further contention was raised that he
was not liable for the contravention of r. 7(1) under which he
'
t
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
37
had no duty to perform and no question of his omission to
appoint a creche-in-charge arose.
Held, per Sinha, C. J., S. K. Das, Das Gupta and Ayyangar, JJ., that the regulations framed under s. 30 of the Mines
Act, r923, survived the repeal of that Act.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 90 to ro6 of r959, followed.
The Mines Creche Rules, 1946, framed under s. 3o(bb) of
the Mines Act of 1923 covered a part of the ground that was
covered by the provisions of s. 58(d) of the Mines Act of 1952,
and to the extent the provisions of the two enactments overlap
each other these rules would continue to be in force by virtue
of s. 24 of the General Clauses Act and operate as rules under
the 1952 Act.
Contravention of r. 7 of the Mines Creche Rules,
1946, was in law contravention of a rule under s. 58(d) of the
1952 Act within the meaning of s. 73 of the Act.
Under s. 18(1) of the Mines Act, 1952, the manager, the
agent and the owner are responsible for observance of the Mines
Creche Rules which form part of the conditions of employment
of female labour engaged in "mining operations" and•under subs. (2) of s. rS each of them shall be deemed to be guilty of the
contfavention of any rule by "any pers0n whosoever'', unless he
proves that he took all reasonable means to prevent such contravention.
The manager in the present case not having proved
that he took all reasonable means to prevent the contravention
of r. 7 by the owner even though the rule in terms laid no duty
on him, must be deemed to be guilty of the contravention.
State Government, M. P. v. Deodatta Diddi, A.LR. (1956) Nag.
71, held inapplicable.
c;. D. Bhattar v. State, A.1.R. (19:ii) Cal. 483, the view
making the manager liable to be approved.
Per Mudholkar, J. - In the mining industry a "mining
operation'', as contemplated under s. 18 of the Mines Act, is
understood to mean an operation undertaken for the purpose of
mining minerals and cannot be extended to mean "management
of mines"· such as employment of labour and providing amenities to employees etc.
The manager of a mine cannot be made
vicariously liable for the omission of the OYi'ner to carry out his
own duty 1inder r. 7(1) of the Mines Creche Rules. Sub-s. (2) of
s. 18 would also absolve the manager from vicariuus liability if
he could show "that he had taken all reasonable means by publishing and to the best of his power enforcing those provisions to
prevent such contravention". But there is nothing in the Act or
the rules which empowers the manager to enforce the performance by the owner of his duty under sub-r. (r) of r. 7 of the
Mines C:re<;he Rules and the manager was therefore not liable
for the breach of that rule.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Criminal
Appeal No. 7 of 1957,
Mohan Lal
Goenka
v.
State of
West Bengal
Mohan Lal
Goenka
v.
Slate of
West Bengal
Das Gupta J.
38
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
Appeal from the judgment and order dated July 12,
1956, of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revision
No. 270 of 1956.
S. C. Mazumdar, for the appellants.
B. Sen, D. N. M·ukherjee and P. K. Bose, for the
respondent.
1961. April 18.
The Judgment of Sinha C. J.,
S. K. Das, K. C. Das Gupta and N. Rajagopala
Ayyangar JJ. was delivered by Das Gupta J. Mudholkar J. delivered a separate Judgment.
DAS GUPTA, J.-This appeal on a certificate granted
by the High Court of Calcutta under Art. 134(l)(c) of
the Constitution is against a judgment and order of
that court, upholding the convict.ion of these appellants under s. 73 of the Indian Mines Act, for contravention of Rule 7 of the Mines Creche Rules, 1946.
Rule 3 of these rules requires the owner of every
mine to construct there a creche in accordance with
the plans prepared in conformity with the rules and
previously approved by the competent authority;
Rule 7 provides that the owner of the mine shall
appoint "a creche in charge, who shall be a woman
possessing such qualifications and training as may be
approved by the competent authority. The complaint
which resulted in the conviction of the two appellants,
of whom, one Goenka was the owner of the Khas
Jawbad Colliery, and the other, viz., J. N. Gupta, the
manager of the colliery, alleged that they had contra.
vened Rule 7 of the Mines Creche Rules, 1946, inasmuch as no creche attendant as required by that rule
had been appointed there. After an appeal of the
present appellants to the Court of Sessions was dismissed, they moved the High Court in revision, but
were unsuccessful, except that their sentences were
reduced. The High Court however gave a certificate
under Art. 134(l)(c) and on that certificate the present
appeal has been filed.
The main contentions raised on behalf of the appellants are, (1) that the Mines Creche Rules, 1946, had
stood repealed, along with the repeal by s. 88 of the
Mines Act of 1952, of the Mines Act, 1923, under which
these rules were admittedly framed and, (2) they having
,_
I
}
2· B.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
39
bet'ln framed under s. 30 (bb) of the Mines Act, 1923,
qannot be deemed to be rules made under the Mines
Ad, 1952, as the requirements of .the corresponding
secti9n of the 1952 Act, viz., s. 58(b) are different from
what is required bys. 30{bb) of the 1923 Act.
In Criminal Appeals Nos. 98 to 106of1959 we have
decided that regulations framed under s. 29 of the
Mines Act, 1923, survive the repeal of ,that Act. The
SMne reasons which form the basis of that decision
apply to the rules framed under .s. '30 of the Mines
Ac't, 1923; and so, the first contention raised on behalf
of the appellants must be'iejected as unsound.
The second question arises in this way. Clause (bb)
of s. 30 of the '1923 Act mentions one of the purposes
for which rules may-be made in these words ''For
requiring the maintenance fn mines, wherein any
women are ordip.arily employed, of suitable rooms to
be reserved for the use of the childre~ under the age
of 6 years· belonging to such women, and for prescrib,
ing, either generally or with particular reference to
number of wonien ordinarily employed in the mine,
the number and standards of such rooms, and the
nature and extent of the supervision to be provided
therein."
In the Mineb Act, 1952, section 58 contains the
·provision empowering the Central Government to
make rules for all or any of the purposes mentioned
there. Clause ( d) of this section runs thus:-
" For requiring the maintenance in mines, wherein
any women are empioyed or were employed, on any
day of the preceding twelve-months, of suitable
rooms to be reserved for the use of the children
under the age of six years belonging to such women,
and for prescribing either generally or with particular reference to the number of women employed in
the mines, the number and standards of such rooms,
and the nature and extent of the amenities to
be provided and the supervision to be exercised
therein;".
While it is obvious that cl. (d) of s. 58 of the 1952
Act corresponds to cl. (bb) of s. 30 of the' 1923 Act, it
has to be noticed that the requirement in the 1952
I96I
Mohan Lal
Goenkp
v.
State of
West Bengal
Das Gupta ].
Mohan Lal
Goenka
v.
Slate of
!Vest Bengal
Das Gupla .J.
40
SUPR~¥E COURT .REEORTS
:[1962]
Act is wider, For, whe~Jl(l.S ruie!l .un!}er s •. ll.Q(l;>l:i) could
require the maintei;i,anoe of ~r\lches at)d:,~ould-.prescril?,e.
certain matters ~n. regard. tq. :these, '.,only ia mi,ne&,::-
wherein "any women- ·a.re ercfip.!ljrily ·,amplo.yeJ:l";
s. 58(d) n,μthorises th,e fram_ing of similar rules ,for
ma.in,tenance of .creches and prescription of .simila.r.
matters, in respect <;>f ,&11-,mil}t;S, ''..whe~ei);I any W?:rpep.
are employed or were. !)mployed on any :aay ·ofth.Ei
preceding twelve-mon~hs". It is contended on behal£
of the appellants that the Creche Rules, 1946, framed
as they were under, s. 30(bb) of ~be 1923 Act; must -be
read ::is requiring .the mainten~nca .of crechl(s and
prescribiIJg certain matters re1ating to creches, only
for mines "wherein any women are ordinarily employed". They cannpt therefore be considered to b.e
rules under s. 58(a) of the 1952 Act, which have to
requir.e the maintenance of creches, .and prescribe
matters relating thereto, not only :for mines where
women ate ordl_narily employ,ed, J:mt for mines"'wherein any women are·empJpyed or were employed on any
day o! the preceding twelve m.onths". It is urged that
the cqntent of the rules cannot be exte)'lded by the
fact that the 1952 Act permit& rules to be frame\! in
-respect of mines other th;in those in respect·of whicli
the rules were ,originally frnrned. In our opinion, the
argum'int is not without force, and it might be.difficult
to say tba~ the Mines Creche Rules framed .under
s. 30(bb) of the 1923 4.ct, would apply to all mines
contemplated qy s. 58(d) of the 1952 Act. This difficulty would n,9t ho~eyer stal}d in the way of the
Mines Creche Rules, 1946, op,erating in respect of
"mines where women arJl ordinarily employed", as
rules under the 1952 Act. It has to be noticed that
'the mines in respect of w
hicb rules may be made under
s. ,58(d) of the 1~5.2 Act, do not ~xclude mines, where
wqmen are ,Qrdinarily employ\ld; the description "mine
wherein any women are qrdinarHy employed "ir~clude,
in the first place the mines where women are ordinarily employed and include in addition to ·those other
mines", 'wherein any women, are ·einployed or were
.employed on any day of the preceding twelve months',
even though the attribute of"women being ordinarily
\ .
.j
)
I
2 S.C.R.
SUP~EME COURT ;:tEPORTS
41
employed there", is not present. Assuming therefore
as correct tbe ;i.rgument tha~ the.con.tent of the rules
doe~ ncit stand extended,. the M.ines Creche Rules,
1946; may still be reasonaply deemed 'to be rules
under s.- 58(d) of the 1952 Act, though not fully
exhausting the purpose mentioned in that section .. In
other word!'l, the position is that wh\le under s. 58(d)
·of the 1952 Act rules may be 'framed in respect of
(1) mines wherein women are qrdinarily eμiployed and
(2) mines wherein though womeμ (Ire not ordinarily
employed, woμien are emp1oyed. a,nd (3) mines, where
though women are not ordinarily employed, women
were employed on any day of the preceding twelve
months, the Mines Creche Rules, 1946, cover a·part of
the ground that could be ·covered by rules under
s. 58(d) of the 1952 Act. To the extent the provisions
of s. 58(d) of.the 1950 Act and s. 30(bb) of the earlier
enactment overlap, these rules would continue in force
by virtue of s . .24 of the· General Clauses Act.
On an examination of the evidence adduced in the
case before the Magistrate, we find th;i.t the Jawabad
Mine was one, where women were ordinarily emplpyed. With regard to this Mine thei;e'fore the Mines
Creche Rules operated as rules under the 1952 Act;
and consequently, contravention of Rule 7 of the Mines
Creche Rules,.1946, was in law a contravention ,of a
rule made under the, 1952 Act, within· the meaning of
s. 73.of that Act.
.
.
On behalf of the second appellant, Gupta, who was
the manager of the colliery at the riilevant time, a
further contention is raised. It is pointed out that
Rule 7(1) .does not in. term1> lay any duty on the manager and it is conten<:led that the manager having no
duty to perform under Rule 7(1) of the Creche Rules;
no question of his contravening the same by omission to appoint a creche-in-charge arises.
The
answer to this question depends on the iuterpret.ation of s. 18 of the Mines Act, 1952, which is in these
words:-
"18. Dut_ies and responsibilities of owners, agents
and managers:-
6
111 ohan Lal
Goenka
v.
State of
West Bengal
pas Gupta ].
-·-
Mohan Lal•
Goe11ka
v.
Slate of
We;t Bengal
Das Gupta ].
-
42
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
(1) The owner, a.gent and manager of every mine
shall be responsible that all operations carried on
in connection therewith are conducted in accordance
with the provisions of this Act and of the regulations, rules and bye-laws and of any orders made
thereunder.
(2) In the event of any contravention of any such
provisions by any person whosoever, the owner,
agent and manager of the mine shall each be deemed also to be guilty of such contravention unless he
proves that he had taken all reasonable means, by
publishing and to the best of his power enforcing
those provisions, to prevent such contravention.
(3) It shall not be a defence in any proceedings
brought against an owner or agent of a mine under
this section that a mana,ger of the mine has been
appointed in accordance.with the provisions of this
Act".
'
.It has to be noticed that after the first sub-section
states in general terms_ that the owner, agent and
manager shall be responsible for_ t~e carrying out of
"all operations carried on" in connection with t)le
mine, in.accordance with the provisions· of the Act
and of the regulations, rules and bye-laws and of any
orders made thereunder, the second sub-section deals
with the question of guilt of the owner, the agent and
manager for contravention of such provisions by "any
person whosoever"; and the third sub.sectiop goes on
to say that the owner or agent cannot escape liability
merely hecause a manager of the mine has been appointed.
The first contention urged on behalf of the appellant
is that the Mines Creche Rules 'have nothing to do
with "operations carried on in the mines" and that
s. 18 deals only with the proper ooservance of the provisions of the Act directly touching the work carried
on in the mines, for raising coal and allied activities. In
our opinion that will be an unduly narrow interpretation of the section. The employment of female labour
is obviously and admittedly connected with the raising of coal in the mine; and all conditions of employment of female labour should reasonably be held to be
'
1'
•
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
43
inextricably connected with "operations C/l,rriecl on"
in tho mines. The Mines Creche Itules are no less conditions of female labom than are the provisions of,
say, s. 46 of tho Act. That section prohibits the employment of women in a mine which is helu11· ground
and also employment of women in mines above ground
except between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. c1xcept to the extent
there is variation of tho hours of employment aboYe
ground by the Central Governmeut in exercise of the
powers given by that very section.
Section 46 ns it
now stands also provid8:l that every woman shall be
allowed an interval of not less than eleven hours, between the termination of employment on any clay and
the commencement of the next period of employment.
It cannot be seriously argued that if in any mine,
women la hour is employed, in breach of these provisions of s. 46, operations would have been carried on
in the mine in accordance with the provisions of the
Act.
W'e see no reason why tlmploymcnt o.f female
labour in a mine, without compliance with the l\Hnes
Oreche Rules, should not be similarly held to amount
to "carrying on operations in connection with the
mine" in contravention of a rule made under the Act.
The true position in ottr opinion is that in order that
operations carried on in connection with the mine can
be said to have been conducted in accorclance with the
provisions of the Act, and of the regulations, rules
and bye-laws, and of the orders made thereunder, it
is necessary not only that such provisions as are
directly connected with the work of raising coal are
observed, but also that provisions governing the conditions of employment of the persons engaged in the
mining operations are also observed.
The Mines
Oreche Rules, as alre~,dy pointed out undoubtedly
form part of the conditions of employment of female
labour engaged in mining oparatiom'. Obsenra11ce of
these rules ia th0refore necessary before operation:;
c1tn be said to have been carried on in nccordancc
with the rnlos made under tlte Act. ln our opinion,
therefore, the effect of s. 18(1) is that all three-the
manager, the 1tgent and the owner-are responsiblP,
for the observance of the J\Iines Creche Hnles.
.ll oha n l_ al
Gotnlu>;
v.
St11te of
iVesf De11gal
,itohan I.al
r; c·ni/;-a
v.
S'taf, u.f
Das Gi'f'a 7.
44
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
On behalf of the Rtate it is urged that the result of
such a responsibility being laid on all the three is that
the mana.ger is liable to penalty for a contravention
of the Mines Creche Rufos by the owner. It is unnecessary however to consider whether s. 18(1) by
itself has this oonsequence; for the matter is put
beyond doll b• by s. 18(2). This suh-section of s. 18
makes all the three-the 0'\1 ner, the agent and the
manager- -severally liable for the breach of any regulat.ions by "any person whosoever". Not only is that
person who coutravened the provisions guilty but each
of these three--the manager, t.he agent arnl the owner
---is also deemed to he guilty though the con1.ravention
wflS not by himsPlf. It would be illogical to say in
the face of this prov[siou that two of them should not
be held liable for the contnw"ntion of the provisions
within s. 18( I) by the thirtl .
.But, says, the manager-appellant, ,;uch a construction of s.18(2) should be avoided as it will be thoroughly unjust. "How am I to senure", says he, "the
observance of a rule which in terms fixes a duty on
the owner only to do certain things''. The argument
rc.J,lly is that the Legislature acted improperly making
the owner, the agent and tl1e manager vicariously
liable for the contravention of certain provisions by
"any person whosoever". 'With the wisdom of the
law the Court is not however concerned. It is pertin011t, to notice however that it was clearly to a void
injustice which may result from the fixation of such
vicarious liability that the legislature has provided
for a special defence of the owner, tho agent and the
manager in such cases.
Thus, if a mle or a bye-law in terms lays a duty on
the manager, and the owner is prosecuted he will
escape punishment as soon as he shows that he did all
that he could reasonably do in seeing that the manager
duly performed his duty. The effect of sub-section (3)
is that the mere appointment of a manager would not
be a sufficient defence. \Vhere, as in the present case,
the rule in question lays a duty in terms on the
owner and the manager is prosecuted he will escape
conviction on showing that he took all reasonable
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
45
means to prevent the contravention of t,he rules by
the owner.
The whole purpose of s. 18 read as a whole appears
to be clearly this:-Tlw provisions of the Act and of
the regulations, rules and bye-laws or orders made
thereunde.r may require certain things to be done or
forbidding the doing of certain things with or without
mentioning tho person required to do the thing or forbidden to do it.
vVhuee a pcrnon definitely indicated is
required lo do or forbidden to do a certain thing he is
straight.away liable t-0 penalty for contravention of
the rules. But the owner, the agent and the manager
\\ill h··· ve the additional responsibility that even
thougJ, any of them is not named as the perwn
required or fo. 0idden to do a thing, the owner, the
manager or the agent, will be liable to punishment
for the contravention of the rule, subject to this that
the liability will disappear as soon as he shows that
he had taken all reasonable means to prev-0nt the
contravention.
In the present case, the manager-appellant has
neither suggested nor proved that he took all reasonable means to prevent the contravention of the provisions of Rule 7 of the Minos Creche Rules by the
owner. He must therefore be deemed guilty of the
contravention, even though the rule in terms laid no
duty on him.
In support of his contention that the law does not
impose any duty on the manager of the mines to carry
out the provisions of the Creche Rules, Mr. l\fajumdar
relied on a decision of the Nagpur High Court in the
State Government, M. P. v Deodatta Didd·i (1). The question there was whether one Deodatta Diddi, Agent,
Rawanwara Khas Colliery, could be hold to have contravened rule 3(1) of the Coal Mines Pithead Il'1th
Rules, 1946, where no pithead baths had been constructed as required by the rules. In terms, rule 3(1)
provided that the owner of every coal mine shall construct. pithead baths in accordance with the plans
prepared in conformity with the rules and approved
by the competent authority. It was held by the High
(1) A.I..R. (1956) Nag. 7x.
Ji1ohan Lal
(;otnl'a
v.
State of
IVtst Bengal
])as Guffa ].
}.f ohan Lai
Goc;rtl1a
v.
Siate of
Das Guj'llt J.
i\fudholkar ],
46
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962)
Court Urnt it was the owner alone who could be deemed
to have contravened the rulo and that the Agent even
a,Rsumiug that he was the representatiYe of the owner
in reHpect of the management of the colliery had no
duty to perform i11 this matter. \Ve notice however that
the attention of the learned Judges was not drawn to
the provisions of s. 18 of the Indian Mines Act. This
decision is therefore of no assistance. The question
as regards the liability of any agent or manager of
the mine for the construction of pithead baths or of
mine creches appearn to have been raised before the
Calcntca High Court in G. D. Bhattar v. The State (1 ).
In that case both the learned Judges considered s. 18
of the Mines Act, 1952, but came to different conclusio11s, one of them holding that under s. 18 the managf'r would be iiable for carrying out the provisions of
these rules while the other learned Judge took a different view.
In our opinion, the former view is correct.
All the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants therefore fail.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
MUDHOLKAR, J,,-\Vhi1" I ag1n (i the ordPr proposed with rcHpect to JVJ.,h:1n ],a] Gondm, I am of the
opinion that the conviction of thl· co-8ppellant Gupta
who was a manager of l;ie rninc1 Cf11rnot b~ su8taincd.
It has throughout bee11 aeceptcd that under r. 7(1)
of the ~1iues Creche Rules, 1946, as Otey stood on the
date of the alleged contravention the responsibility
for appointfog a creche in charge was on the owner of
the mine only. It was, therefore, contended on behalf
of Gupta that he cannot be held liable for the contravention of the rule made by the owner Mohan Lal
Goenka.
Reliance was, however, placed on behalf of .
the State in the courts below as well as before us on
the provisions of s. 18 of the Mines Act, 1952 (35 of
1952). That section reads thus:
"(I) The owner, agent and manager of every
mine shall be responsible that all operations carried
011 in connection therewith are conduoted in accordance with the provisiuns of thiH Act and of the
(t) A,l.R. (195/) Cal. 483.
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
47
regulations, rules and bye-laws and of any orders
made thereunder.
(2) In the event of '1ny contravention of any oiwh
provisions by any perHon whosoever, the nwner,
agent and manager of the mine shall each be deemed
also to be guilty of such contravention unless he
proves that he had taken all reasona.hle means, by
publishing and to the best of his power pnforcing
those provisions, to prevent such contravention:
Provided that the owner or agent shall not be so
deemed if he proves-
(a) that he was not in the habit of taking, a.nd
did not in respect of the matter in question take,
any part in the management of the mines; and
(b) that he had made all the financial and other
provisions necessary to enable the manage1· to carry
out his duties; and
(c) that the offence was committed without his
knowledge, consent or connivance.
(3) Save as hereinbefore provided, it shall not be
a defence in any proceedings brought against an
owner or agent of a mine under this section that a
manager of the mine has been appointed in accordance with the provisions of this Act."
It was urged that this section holds the owner,
the agent as well as the manager liable for the contravention of any provision of the Act or of a regulation,
rule or bye-law made by any person unless the owner,
agent or manager can bring his case within a.ny of the
exceptions set out in sub-s. (2) of s. 18. It is pointed
out that Gupta has not relied on any exeeption and,
therefore, his conviction is correct in law.
Section 18 is in Chapter IV of the Mines Act which
deals with "Mining operations" and "Management of
mines". This chn,pter thus deals with two topics.
Section 18, however, deals with only one of these two
topics, that is, "Mining operations". This would clearly
follow from the language of sub-s. (1) of s. 18. The
duties and responsibilities of owners, agents and managers with which this section deals are with respect to
"all operations carried on in connection therewith", i.e.,
the mine. Therefore, the inference must be that this section deals with duties etc., in connection with mining
z96z
}.} ,Jhan Lal
Gnnd:a
v.
Starr uf
iFes-t Bn1gal
JI 11dl.ol111u J.
1961
;.11ohan Lal
Goenka
v.
State of
JVest Bengal
Afudholkar ].
48
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
operations only. The chapter itself has drawn a distinction between "Mining operations" and "Management
of mines". Employment of labour, providing amenities
for them and allied matters would pertain mainly to
"management" and not to "l\Iiniug operations". The
expression "Mining operations" occurring in an Act
dealing with mines should be accorded that meaning
which it has in the mining industry. In the industry
a mining operation is understood to meau an operation undertaken for the purpose of winning minerals
and cannot, as suggested by my learned brother, be
given an extended meaning so as to embrace within it
matters such as employment of labour, providing
amenities to labour etc., even though that labour is
utilised or required for the purpose of carrying on
mining operations. I can see no justification for giving an extended moaning to the expression "Mining
operations" and none was suggested at the bar. Upon
this view it would follow that the manager of a mine
cn.nnot be made vicariously liable for tho omission of
the owner to carry out his duty under r. 7(1) of the
Mines Creche Rules.
There is an additional rei1son for coming to the
same conclusion. Upon the language of s. 18(2) the
manager of a mine cannot be held liable for the contravention by the owner of any provision of the Act,
regulation, rule or bye-law unless that contravention
was with respect to a matter in regard to which the
exception could be available. To put it a little differently, a manager cannot be held vicariously liable
for a contravention unless there was on his part also
an omission to do something which was in his power
to do.
Sub-section (2) of s. 18 would absolve a
manager from vicarious liability if he could show
"that he had taken all reasonable means by publishing
and to the best of his power enforcing those provisions to prevent such contravention". This, therefore,
implies that by resorting to certain steps he can escape
liability. The first part of the quotation is clearly inapplicable to the present case. The second part would
apply provided the manager had the power to enforce
the performance of a particular duty by the owner.
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPOHTS
4!-J
Them is nothing in the Act or the rulr8 which "Illpowers tho manager to enforce the performance b.)
the OWlh>r of his duties under sub-r. (l) of r. 7.
Since
that is tho position it must be held that Llw m<Laag<'r
is not liablo fur the contrnv1,nLiun by the owner· uf
his duty uncler sub-1·. (1) of r. 7 of the :\lines Crech<·
H11lcs.
That the construction I an pl»cing on th is
prov isinn is (.he pruper one would a1Jp<'<>r from the
following illustration.
Section 17 of the Act provides that thP owner or an
agent of every mine shall appoint a person having
the prescribed q ualitication as a manager of the mine.
Section 57(c) prnvides for the framing of regulatiorrn
prescribing the qualifications for t.he manager , 1f
mines.
l will assume that regulations h;we !wen
made thereunder prescribing the qualifinations for
managern. lf a person is appointed as a nrn1wger of
a mine even thongh he does not possess the prescribed
qualification would he be held vicariously liable for
the contravention by the owner or the agent of the
duties placed npon the owner and agent by a Hegulation and by s. 17?
I do not think that there would be
any difficulty in saying that he would not be !iv.hie
for the simple reason that it was not, within hii! powel'
to enforce the compliance by the owner of the duty
cast upon him by the regulatio1rn. l would, therefore,
al:ow the appeal of Gupta aud set aside the sentence
of conviction passed upon him.
OHDER. In accordance with the opinion of the
mttjority the appeal, on behttlf of both the appellants,
is dismissed.
Appeal di8missed.
/ ·_,'Jr
.1loiia11 Lal
v