Telangana High Court
Ch.N.Malleswar Rao Krishna Dist vs Secy Min Of Labour New Delhi 4 ... on 26 July, 2022
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, Surepalli Nanda
* THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
+ W.P.Nos.33111 OF 2013, 8244 AND 8292 OF 2016,
14717 OF 2018 AND 6266 OF 2020
% Date: 26-07-2022
# J.V.Rama Rao
... Petitioner
v.
$ Union of India, rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Labour, Secretariat, New Delhi and others
... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr. Y.Pulla Rao
^ Counsel for respondents 1 and 5: Mr. T.Suryakaran Reddy,
learned Additional Solicitor
General of India
along withMr. K.Aravind Kumar,
learned Central Government Counsel
^ Counsel for respondent No.4 : Mr. J.Srinivasa Rao,
learned Standing Counsel for
Singareni Colleries Company Limited
< GIST:
HEAD NOTE:
? CASES REFERRED:
2
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION Nos.33111 OF 2013, 8244 AND 8292 OF 2016,
14717 OF 2018 AND 6266 OF 2020
COMMON JUDGMENT AND ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal
Bhuyan)
This order will dispose of the above writ petitions. As
a matter of fact, the above writ petitions are before the
Division Bench on a reference made in view of the
conflicting decisions of learned Single Benches.
2. We have heard Mr. Y.Pulla Rao, learned counsel for
the petitioners; Mr. T.Suryakaran Reddy, learned
Additional Solicitor General of India along with
Mr. K.Aravind Kumar, learned Central Government
Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 5; and Mr. J.Srinivasa
Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4 -
Singareni Collieries Company Limited.
3. The reference is before Division Bench to answer the
following question which has been framed by the learned
referral Judge:
3
Whether a driver employed by a transport contractor
engaged by the Singareni Collieries Company Limited for
transportation of coal would fall within the definition of the
term 'employee' under Section 2(d) of the Coal Mines
Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 or
not?
4. The referral order succinctly sums up the
controversy in question. However, we will advert to the
same a bit later. It may be mentioned that petitioners in
all the cases were awarded contract by Singareni Collieries
Company Limited for transportation of coal for certain
periods. Petitioners commenced transportation work
immediately and had executed the work awarded to them
by complying with the work order, whereafter bills were
raised by the petitioners for payment of contractual dues.
According to the petitioners, Singareni Collieries Company
Limited (briefly 'the company', hereinafter) is insisting on
petitioners to pay contribution @ 10.5/6% on behalf of the
contractor to the Coal Mines Provident Fund. Petitioners
contend that they are not liable to pay the same in as
much as provisions of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 do not apply to
4
contractors who are employed to transport coal from one
place to another as per work orders.
5. The referral Bench noticed that one of the first cases
which came up before this Court was W.P.No.11107 of
2009 and batch. The said batch of writ petitions was
disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide
the common judgment and order dated 30.03.2011. In the
said judgment, leaned Single Judge recorded that a
serious doubt arose as to whether the activity assigned to
the petitioners would be treated as one in 'coal mine'.
Learned Single Judge observed that the necessity for an
employer to make contribution to the Coal Mines
Provident Fund would accrue only when an employee is
made a member of the fund. Parameters for an employee
to become a member of the fund are provided in the Coal
Mines Provident Fund Scheme. However, learned Single
Judge found that there was nothing on record to show
that any effort was made by the company to ascertain
these facts. Contributions were being deducted merely on
the basis of the number of workers that are supposed to
5
be engaged. It is only when such worker is made a
member of the fund, that a meaningful contribution can
be made. If deduction is made without the worker being a
member of the fund, it would amount to an illegal
collection which is not contemplated under the Coal Mines
Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948
(briefly, 'the Act' hereinafter). Learned Single Judge held
as follows:
The Act was brought into existence for the benefit of
the workers in the coal mines. In exercise of power under the
Act, the Central Government framed the Coal Mines
Provident Fund, Family Pension, and a Trust, to operate the
same. The salient features of the Scheme are that, the
employees, who are engaged in the coal mines, are to be
made members of the CMPF, and are issued cards, apart
from being assigned numbers. That in turn create obligation
on the part of the employee and the employer to make
contribution to the fund. The benefits arising out of the fund
in favour of the members are also enlisted. The allotment of
account numbers, issuance of cards, the renewal thereof,
etc., are provided for under Clauses 39, 40, 41 and 42 of the
Scheme. The membership in the fund is coextensive with the
employment in the coal mines.
It is not in dispute that the petitioners are assigned
the work of transporting coal, which is already extracted
from the mines. A serious doubt arises, as to whether the
activity assigned to them can be treated as the one, in 'coal
mine'. The definition of 'coal mine', under Section 2 (b) takes
in its fold, vast number of activities enlisted from Clause (i)
6
to (xiii). In these writ petitions, it is not necessary to make a
final pronouncement, as to whether the transport activity of
coal falls within that definition.
Even where an activity is referable to a 'coal mine',
the necessity for an employer to make contribution to the
CMPF arises, only when an employee is made a member of
the fund. The parameters for an employee to become a
member of the fund are stipulated under the Scheme.
Nowhere in the correspondence between the parties, it is
evident that any effort was made by the respondents, to
ascertain these facts. The contributions are being deducted,
just on the basis of the number of workers, that are
supposed to be engaged.
It is only when such worker is made the member of
the fund, that a meaningful contribution can be made. If
deduction is made, without the worker being the member of
the fund, it amounts to an illegal collection, if not undue
enrichment on the part of the respondents. The Act does not
contemplate the deductions being made, even where, neither
account numbers are assigned, nor membership cards are
issued to the employees. As and when a responsible officer
undertakes such an exercise, the question, as to whether the
activity being undertaken amounts to that of a coal mine;
can also be examined. It would be premature for this Court
to make any pronouncement on such questions.
5.1. In view of the aforesaid deliberation, the following
directions came to be issued by the learned Single Judge
while disposing of W.P.No.11107 of 2009 (M/s.Mallikarjuna
Transport v. Singareni Collieries Company Limited) and batch.
Hence, the writ petitions are disposed of, directing that,
7
a) the Regional Commissioner or any Officer authorized
by him shall first issue a notice to the petitioners to
decide whether the activity undertaken by the
petitioners comes within the definition of Coal Mine.
It shall be open to the petitioners to submit
explanation;
b) in the event of the activity being declared as the one
in coal mine, the employees shall be enrolled as
members, subject to their fulfilment of the prescribed
conditions, the respondents shall assign account
numbers and issue cards; and the deductions shall
be made with reference to the account numbers and
cards so issued, periodically;
c) till such time, no deductions shall be made, but if it
is held that the petitioners are liable, at a later point
of time, they shall be under obligation to pay the
arrears also;
d) the amount deducted from the petitioners, so far,
shall be kept in FDRs and the manner in which it
shall be utilized shall be decided, depending upon the
outcome of the exercise undertaken above; and
e) the authority of the coal mines provident fund shall
ensure that it does not deduct any amount, without
reference to a particular employee, who is admitted to
the provident fund."
6. Learned referral Judge noted that in a subsequent
writ petition being W.P.No.29331 of 2013 (K.Venkateswarlu
v. Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation) challenge was
made by the petitioner to an order dated 01.08.2013
passed by the Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation
8
whereby it was held that the driver employed by the
petitioner (coal transporter) is covered by the provisions of
the Act. Facts
as noted by the learned Single Judge were
that petitioner in that case had given his four wheeler jeep
on hire to the company for being used for carrying its
officers in connection with their employment. When a
demand was made by the company for payment of
provident fund, petitioner filed W.P.No.4235 of 2012,
which was disposed of by this Court by order dated
29.03.2012 directing the Coal Mines Provident Fund
Organisation to consider whether the contract entered into
by the petitioner would be governed by the provisions of
the Act? After due enquiry, Coal Mines Provident Fund
Organisation passed the order dated 01.08.2013 holding
that the driver employed by the petitioner would be
covered by the provisions of the Act. While upholding the
order dated 01.08.2013 learned Single Judge held as
follows:
A perusal of the impugned order passed by
respondent No.1 shows that it has considered the definition
of 'coal mine' under Section 2(b)(xiii) and that of 'employee'
under Section 2(d) of the Act. The word 'coal mine' is defined
under Section 2(b)(xiii) of the Act as any premises in or
adjacent to and belonging to a coal mine, on which any plant
or other machinery connected with a coal mine is situated or
on which any process ancillary to the work of coal mine is
being carried. Under Section 2(d) of the Act, the word
'employee' is defined as any person who is employed by or
through a contractor or in connection with a coal mine
employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise
or in connection with a coal mine and who gets his wages
directly or indirectly from the employer and includes (1) any
person employed by or through a contractor or in connection
with a coal mine. Based on these definitions, respondent
No.1 has found that as the vehicle given on hire by the
petitioner to respondent No.2 is in connection with coal mine
and the driver of the vehicle is employed through the
petitioner who is a contractor of respondent No.2, the driver
is covered by the Act.
On a careful consideration of the reasoning of
respondent No.1, I do not find any reason to interfere with
the same. The language of Section 2(d) of the Act is widely
worded as to take within its sweep the driver of a jeep
engaged in connection with coal mine. As the jeep was
admittedly hired to respondent No.2 for an activity connected
with coal mine, the driver of the jeep certainly falls within the
said definition. The Act being a piece of beneficial legislation,
its provisions need to be liberally construed. Viewed from
this angle, I do not find any error in the order of respondent
No.1.
Sri Peri Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that no provision is made under the contract
between the petitioner and respondent No.2 for payment of
provident fund by the petitioner. In my view, the absence of
the provision under the contract will not absolve the
petitioner from his statutory liability. If the petitioner feels
that respondent No.2 being the principal employer is liable to
pay the provident fund, he is entitled to avail appropriate
remedy for recovery of the provident fund contribution from
respondent No.2.
6.1. Accordingly the aforesaid writ petition was
dismissed.
7. Learned referral Judge vide the order dated
23.03.2016 observed that having regard to the wide
language used in Section 2(d) of the Act and the definition
of the term 'coal mine' under Section 2(d)(xiii) of the Act,
there is possibility that the activity being undertaken by
the petitioner may have to be construed as an activity in
connection with coal mine and the employee/driver of the
petitioner may be covered under the definition of Section
2(d) of the Act. However, in view of the conflicting opinions
rendered in the two decisions mentioned supra, learned
Single Judge was of the view that the issue is required to
be considered by a Division Bench of this Court for an
authoritative conclusion. Accordingly the reference was
made. Relevant portion of the referral order is as under:
8. Having regard to the wide language used in Section 2(d) of
the Act and the definition of the term "coal mine" under
Section 2(d)(xiii) of the Act, I am of the opinion that there is
possibility that activity being undertaken by petitioner might
have to be construed as an activity in connection with the
coal mine and the employee/driver of the petitioner might
probably be covered under the definition under Section 2(d)
of the Act.
9. However, in view of the conflicting opinions rendered in
the decision dt.30-03-2011 in W.P.No.11107 of 2009 and
batch and the decision dt.09-10-2013 in W.P.No.29331 of
2013, I am of the opinion that the issue needs to be
considered by the Division bench of this Court
authoritatively.
10. Although counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the
interim order dt.15.03.2016 granted by another learned
single Judge in W.P.M.P.No.10517 of 2016 in W.P.No.8292 of
2016, a reading of the said interim order does not disclose
that the above two decisions were brought to the notice of
the learned single Judge in that case. Therefore, I do not
deem it appropriate to express any opinion on the matter.
11. For the above reasons, I am of the opinion that the issue
"whether a driver employed by transport Contractor engaged
by the Singareni Collieries Company Limited for transportation
of coal would fall within the definition of the term "employee"
under Section 2(d) of the Act or not"? should be resolved by a
Division Bench.
8. Before we dwell on the referral order, it would be
apposite to mention that on similar orders being passed
by this Court as the order dated 30.03.2011 referred to
above remanding the matter back to the Coal Mines
Provident Fund Organisation to take a decision as to
whether the activity undertaken by the petitioner would
come within the definition of 'coal mine' as contemplated
under the Act, a number of orders came to be passed by
the Regional Commissioner of Coal Mines Provident Fund
Organisation, Kothagudem, which is the authority under
the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme. One such order is
dated 22.02.2016, relevant portion of which is extracted
as under:
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., engaged
Sri Ch.N.Malleswara Rao, the transport contractor for
transportation of coal from GK.OCP to Rudrampur CHP
(RCHP) bunkers & PVK RCHP bunkers against the work
order No.7600005958 dated 01.06.2015, incorporating
therein that the contractor has to comply labour legislation
including the coverage of their employees under Coal Mines
Provident Fund Scheme if they have not been covered under
the Employees Provident Fund Scheme (under clause 6 of
the Work Order). The contractor filed a writ petition
No.23933 of 2015 before Hon'ble High Court for the State of
Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad
challenging the deduction of amounts from their bills
towards Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme in the respect of
the workmen engaged by them by M/s. Singareni Collieries
Company Ltd., on the ground that contract labour are not
governed by the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme.
The Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana
and the State of Andhra Pradesh disposed W.P.No.23933 of
2015, directing the undersigned to decide whether the
activity undertaken by the petitioner contractors comes
within the definition of "Coal Mine" if so, whether they are
entitled for coverage under provisions of Coal Mines
Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1948, after
issuance of notice by giving an opportunity to represent their
case and considering the representation submitted by them,
if any vide order dated 31.07.2015.
Accordingly a notice dated 03.11.2015 was issued to
the petitioner by giving an opportunity to furnish all relevant
details and information as to the deployment of their labour
in the coal mines in order to fulfil their contractual
obligations and submit their representation, in order to
decide the matter as per the provisions of the Coal Mines
Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948.
The contractor (petitioner in the above W.P) has not
submitted any relevant information as to particulars of their
labour deployed by them in the mines as per the terms of the
contract with M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.
The Contractor has not remitted any amount towards
Provident Fund directly to the CMPF Organisation. The
petitioner has also not furnished any information whether
their employees are covered as per the provisions of EPF Act
or not. Further the contractor has not furnished any details
as to recovery of the amounts from their bills made by the
principal employer viz. The S.C.Co.Ltd and the details of
remittances made thereon.
In the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1948, it is defined in Section 2(b)(xiii) 'Coal
Mine' means 'any premises in or adjacent to and belonging to
a coal mine, on which plant or other machinery connected
with a coal mine is situated or on which any process
ancillary to the work of coal mine is being carried'.
In Section 2(d), employee, means any person who is
employed or through a contractor in or in connection with a
coal mine employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or
otherwise in or in connection with a coal mine employed for
wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise in or
connection with a coal mine and who get his wages directly
or indirectly form the employer and includes any person
employed by or through a contractor or in connection with a
coal mine.
The job nomenclature, and the works carried out by
the contract labour has also been enquired with the
Management of M/s.Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
whose unit was covered under provisions of Coal Mines
Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 and
a code number was allotted. It is found that the works
carried by the employees of the principal employer who are
covered under the National Coal Wage Agreement and the
labour deployed by the contractor is similar in nature.
Under Para 2(g)(iii) of the CMPF Scheme, the contract
workers engaged in the activity of coal transport are not
excluded and hence they should be covered under the CMPF
scheme.
After careful consideration of all the facts in details, it
is considered and decided that the activity undertaken by the
contractor (petitioner) do fall within the definition of 'Coal
Mine' and their employees are entitled for the benefits under
the provisions of CMPF Scheme. Therefore, the contractor is
liable to pay the contributions towards Coal Mines Provident
Fund in respect of their employees.
The principal employer i.e., M/s. Singareni Collieries
Company Ltd., is directed to furnish the details of
contributions paid by them under Section 10 of Coal Mines
Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948,
along with the statutory returns and declarations forms in
respect of the contract labour to record and allot
membership number within 2 months from date of receipt of
this order in order to avoid further proceedings.
9. Subsequently, similar orders came to be passed by
the Provident Fund Inspector on 06.11.2019, relevant
portion of which reads as under:
M/s Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., engaged
M/s Sri G. Veeraiah for transportation of coal against the
work order No.7600007394 dated 03.07.2018, incorporating
therein that the contractor has to comply labour legislation
including the coverage of their employees under Coal Mines
Provident Fund Scheme if they have not been covered under
the Employees Provident Fund Scheme. The contractor filed
a writ petition No.27465 of 2018 before Hon'ble High Court
for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad challenging the
deduction of amounts from their bills towards Coal Mines
Provident Fund Scheme in the respect of the workmen
engaged by them by M/s Singareni Collieries Company Ltd
on the ground that contract labour engaged in coal transport
are not governed by the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme.
The Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana
disposed of W.P.No 27465 of 2018, directing the Regional
Commissioner or any officer authorized by him to decide
whether the activity undertaken by the petitioner comes
within the definition of "Coal Mine" (if so, whether they are
entitled for coverage under provisions of Coal Mines
Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Act 1948, after issuance
of notice by giving an opportunity to represent their case and
considering the representation submitted by them, if any
vide order dated 29.04.2019.
Accordingly a notice dated 03.07.2019 was issued to
the petitioner by giving an opportunity to furnish all relevant
details and information as to the deployment of their labour
in the coal mines in order to fulfill their contractual
obligations and submit their representation, in order to
decide the matter as per the provisions of the Coal Mines
Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Act, 1948.
The contractor (petitioner in the above W.P) has not
submitted any relevant information as to particulars of their
labour deployed by them in the mines as per the terms of the
contract with M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.
Further the Contractor has not remitted any amount
towards Provident Fund directly to the CMPF Organization.
The petitioner has also not furnished any information to
prove/show whether their employees are covered as per the
provisions of EPF Act or not.
In the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1948, it is defined in section 2(b)(Xiii) 'Coal
Mine' means 'any premises in or adjacent to and belonging to
a coal mine on which plant or other machinery connected
with a coal mine is situated or on which any process
ancillary to the work of coal mine is being carried'.
In section 2(d), employee, means any person who is
employed by or through a contractor in or in connection with
a coal mine employed for wages in any kind of work, manual
or otherwise in or connection with a coal mine and who get
his wages directly or indirectly from the employer and
includes any person employed by or through a contractor or
in connection with a coal mine.
Under Para 2(g)(iii) of the CMPF Scheme, the contract
workers engaged in the activity of coal transport are not
excluded and hence they should be covered under the CMPF
scheme.
After careful consideration of all the facts in detail, it
is considered and decided that the activity undertaken by the
contractor (petitioner) do fall within the definition of 'Coal
Mine' and their employees are entitled for the benefits under
the provisions of CMPF Scheme. Therefore, the contractor is
liable to pay the contributions towards Coal Mines Provident
Fund in respect of their employees.
Accordingly, the contractor (petitioner) is directed to
cover his employees under CMPF Scheme, 1948 & CMPS
1998 immediately. The contractor workers cannot be
deprived from the benefits of CMPF scheme and pension
scheme.
Hence M/s SCCL, represented by 1, 2 & 3 is also
directed to ensure compliance of the same and if the
contractor fails, M/s SCCL as a Principal Employer must
ensure coverage of the contractor workers engaged through
M/s Sri G. Veeraiah, S/o Rangaiah (petitioner), under CMPF
Scheme under para 28 & 29 of CMPF scheme extract
enclosed).
The Principal Employer i.e M/s Singareni Collieries
Company Ltd., is directed to furnish the details of
contributions paid by them along with the statutory returns
and declarations forms in respect of the contract labour to
record and allot membership number within 2 weeks from
date of receipt of this order in order to avoid further
proceedings.
10. From the above, it is discernible that the considered
stand of the Coal Mines Provident Fund is that the activity
undertaken by the contractor (petitioner) falls within the
definition of 'coal mine' and their employees are entitled to
the benefit under the provisions of the Coal Mines
Provident Fund Scheme. Therefore, the contractor is liable
to pay contribution towards Coal Mines Provident Fund in
respect of the employees. Accordingly, the contractor
(petitioner) was directed to get his employees covered
under the Scheme taking the view that contractor's
workers cannot be deprived from the benefits of the Coal
Mines Provident Fund Scheme and Pension Scheme.
Directions have also been issued to the company, being
the principal employer, to ensure coverage of the
contractor's workers.
11. Let us now examine relevant provisions of the Act
and the Scheme.
12. The Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1948 (already referred to as 'the Act'
hereinbefore) has been enacted to make provisions for the
framing of a Provident Fund Scheme, a Pension Scheme, a
Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme and a Bonus Scheme
for persons employed in Coal Mines. 'Coal Mine' is defined
in Section 2(b) of the Act. Section 2(b) of the Act is as
under:
(b) "Coal mine" means any excavation where any
operation for the purpose of searching for or obtaining coal
has been or is being carried on, and includes-
(i) all borings and bore holes;
(ii) all shafts, in or adjacent to and belonging to a coal
mine, whether in the course of being sunk or not;
(iii) all levels and inclined places in the course of being
driven;
(iv) any open cast working or quarry, that is to say, an
excavation where any operation for the purpose of
searching for or obtaining coal has been or is being
carried on, not being a shaft or an excavation which
extends below superjacent ground;
(v) all conveyors or aerial rope-ways provided for the
bringing into or removal from a coal mine of coal or
other articles or for the removal of refuse therefrom;
(vi) all adits, levels, planes, machinery, works, railways,
tramways and sidings, in or adjacent to and
belonging to a coal mine;
(vii) all workshops situated within the precincts of a coal
mine and under the same management and used for
purposes connected with that coal mine or a number
of coal mines under the same management;
(viii) any office of a coal mine;
(ix) all power stations for supplying electricity for the
purpose of working the coal mine or a number of
coal mines under the same management;
(x) any premises for the time being used for depositing
refuse from a coal mine, or in which any operation in
connection with such refuse is being carried on,
being premises exclusively occupied by the employer
of the coal mine;
(xi) all hospitals and canteens maintained for the benefit
of the employees of a coal mine or a number of coal
mines under the same management;
(xii) any coke oven or plant;
(xiii) any premises in or adjacent to and belonging to a
coal mine, on which any plant or other machinery
connected with a coal mine is situated or on which
any process ancillary to the work of a coal mine is
being carried on.
12.1. Thus, from the above it is seen that definition of 'coal
mine' is a broad based one. It means any excavation
where any operation for the purpose of searching for or
obtaining coal has been or is being carried on and
includes all borings, bore holes etc. It is an inclusive
definition which includes all workshops situated within
the precincts of a coal mine and under the same
management and used for purposes connected with that
coal mine or a number of coal mines under the same
management; any office of a coal mine; all power stations
for supplying electricity for the purpose of working the
coal mine or a number of coal mines under the same
management; any premises for the time being used for
depositing refuse from a coal mine or any operation in
connection with such refuse is being carried on, being
premises exclusively occupied by the employer of the coal
mine; all hospitals and canteens maintained for the
benefit of the employees of a coal mine or a number of coal
mines under the same management; any coke oven or
plant etc.
13. Learned Single Judge in K.Venkateswarlu (supra)
observed that the expression 'coal mine' is defined as any
premises in or adjacent to and belonging to a coal mine,
on which any plant or other machinery connected with a
coal mine is situated or on which any process ancillary to
the work of coal mine is being carried. Even the authority
while passing consequential order has taken or given a
broad interpretation to the expression 'coal mine'.
14. Section 2(d) of the Act defines the word 'employee' as
under:
(d) "employee" means any person who is employed
for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or
in connection with a coal mine, and who gets his wages
directly or indirectly from the employer, and includes-
(1) any person employed by or through a contractor
or in connection with a coal mine, and
(2) for the purposes of the Coal Mines Provident
Fund Scheme, also
(i) any other person who is employed as a
sanitary worker, mali, teacher or domestic
servant in or in connection with a coal mine
and who receives wages directly from the
employer, and
(ii) any apprentice or trainee who receives
stipend or other remuneration from the
employer.
14.1. Thus, 'employee' has been defined to mean any
person who is employed for wages in any kind of work,
manual or otherwise, in a coal mine or in connection with
a coal mine and who gets his wages directly or indirectly
from the employer and includes (1) any person employed
by or through a contractor in or in connection with a coal
mine and (2) for the purposes of the Coal Mines Provident
Fund Scheme (i) any person who is employed as a sanitary
worker, mali, teacher or domestic servant in a coal mine
or in connection with a coal mine and who receives wages
directly from the employer; and (ii) any apprentice or
trainee who receives stipend or other remuneration from
the employer. Again here also, the word 'employee' has
been given a broad meaning which includes any person
who is employed directly or through a contractor in a coal
mine or in connection with a coal mine and includes
persons engaged as sanitary worker, mali, teacher or
domestic servant etc. It also includes any apprentice or
trainee who receives stipend or other remuneration from
the employer.
15. This brings us to the definition of 'employer'.
'Employer' is defined in Section 2(e) of the Act as under:
(e) "employer', when used in relation to a coal mine,
means any person who is the immediate proprietor or
lessee or occupier of the coal mine or of any part thereof
and in the case of a coal mine the business whereof is
being carried on by a liquidator or receiver, such liquidator
or receiver and in the case of a coal mine owned by a
company the business whereof is being carried on by a
managing agent, such managing agent; but does not
include a person who merely receives a royalty, rent or fine
from the coal mine, or is merely the proprietor of the coal
mine, subject to any lease, grant or licence for the working
thereof, or is merely the owner of the soil and not
interested in the coal of the coal mine; but any contractor
for the working of a coal mine or any part thereof shall be
subject to this Act in like manner as if he were an
employer, but not so as to exempt the employer from any
liability.
15.1. Thus, the word 'employer' when it is used in relation
to a coal mine means any person who is the immediate
proprietor or lessee or occupier of the coal mine or any
part thereof and includes a contractor for the working of a
coal mine or any part thereof and who would be subject to
provisions of the Act in a like manner as if he were an
employer, but not so as to exempt the employer from any
liability.
15.2. Thus, as per the above definition, a contractor
working for a coal mine would also be included in the
definition of 'employer'.
16. Section 2(f) defines 'fund' to mean the provident fund
established under the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme.
17. Clause 25A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund
Scheme, 1948 explains the class of employees required to
join the fund after 31.12.1961. As per sub-clause (1),
every employee of a coal mine to which the Scheme
applies other than an excluded employee shall be required
to join the 'fund' and become a member immediately after
the end of the month following any month or quarter as
the case may be in which he completes the days of
attendance as mentioned in sub-clause (v) therein.
18. Thus, on a conjoint reading of the definitions of 'coal
mine', 'employee' and 'employer', it is evident that the
works carried out by a contractor, transporting coal or
officials of the coal mine would be covered by the
provisions of the Act.
19. It may also be relevant to refer to the contract
agreement entered into by and between the contractor and
the company. Clause 6 thereof says that the contractor
shall follow all statutory rules, regulations, applicable laws
etc as well as statutory requirements related to
government licences, workmen compensation, coal mines
provident fund, working hours of the workmen, insurance
etc. Besides the contractor shall make necessary
arrangements for enrolling all his workmen and staff as
members of the Coal Mines Provident Fund. Thereafter
details of Coal Mines Provident Fund contribution have
been mentioned. Further, it is mentioned that a certificate
shall be issued by the concerned personnel to the effect
that the contractor has deducted the amount of Coal
Mines Provident Fund dues and Pension and deposited
the same along with the matching share with the
concerned Regional Commissioner of Coal Mines Provident
Fund. A copy of such certificate shall be attached with the
bill of the contractor. Payment to the contractor shall be
released against the bill by the Finance Department only
after verifying the above documents.
20. Similar is the position in the agreement signed by
and between the contractor and the company with
identical provision being mentioned in clause 6 of the
agreement bond.
21. From a conjoint reading and careful analysis of the
above provisions, the irresistible conclusion one can draw
is that the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation. It is
intended to confer certain benefits on labour working in or
in connection with a coal mine. Thus the provisions of the
Act are to be construed liberally. In the circumstances, in
view of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in
K.Venkateswarlu (supra) and decisions rendered by the Coal
Mines Provident Fund Organisation holding that activity
undertaken by the contractor falls within the ambit of the
definition 'coal mine', the employees engaged by the
contractor would be entitled to the benefits under the Act
as well as under the provisions of the Coal Mines
Provident Fund Scheme. The doubts expressed by the
learned Single Judge in the previous round of litigation
i.e., in Mallikarjuna Transport (supra) does not appear to be
justified and the same has been proved by the
consequential orders passed by the Coal Mines Provident
Fund Organisation.
22. Thus upon thorough consideration of all aspects of
the matter, we have no hesitation in holding that a driver
employed by a transport contractor engaged by the
company for transportation of coal would come within the
definition of the term 'employee' under Section 2(b) of the
Act. Therefore, such a driver or employee would be entitled
to the benefits of the Act and the Coal Mines Provident
Fund Scheme.
23. The referred question is answered accordingly.
24. In view of the decision rendered above, all the writ
petitions would naturally have to fail and accordingly
those are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as
to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall
stand closed.
______________________________________
UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ
______________________________________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
26.07.2022
pln
