1954 (4) TMI 67 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Mines Creche Rules, 1946.
2. Validity of the Coal Mines Pithead Bath Rules, 1946.
3. Competency of the reference under Section 432, Criminal P. C.
4. Interpretation of Section 30(bb) and 30(bbb) of the Indian Mines Act, 1923.
5. Application of Article 228 of the Constitution.
6. Double delegation principle.
7. Constitutionality under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
8. Manager's liability under Section 16 of the Indian Mines Act, 1923.
9. Continuing offence under Section 42 of the Indian Mines Act, 1923.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Mines Creche Rules, 1946:
The primary issue was whether the Mines Creche Rules, 1946, were ultra vires and without jurisdiction. The rules required colliery owners to construct creches and pithead baths. The court examined whether these rules exceeded the powers conferred by Section 30(bb) of the Indian Mines Act, 1923. The dissenting opinion held that the rules were invalid as they imposed requirements beyond the scope of the Act, such as the construction of elaborate facilities and provision of various items like medicines and toys, which were not contemplated by the Act. The majority opinion, however, found that the rules were within the legislative intent and necessary for the welfare of women and children in mines.

2. Validity of the Coal Mines Pithead Bath Rules, 1946:
Similar to the Mines Creche Rules, the Coal Mines Pithead Bath Rules, 1946, were scrutinized for being ultra vires. The dissenting opinion argued that the rules were invalid as they required facilities not specified in Section 30(bbb) of the Act, such as latrines and attendants' rooms. The majority opinion upheld the rules, stating that the requirements were within the legislative intent and necessary for the health and hygiene of mine workers.

3. Competency of the Reference under Section 432, Criminal P. C.:
The reference was made by the Special Magistrate under Section 432, Criminal P. C., questioning the validity of the rules. The dissenting opinion held the reference incompetent as Section 432 applies to Acts, Ordinances, or Regulations, not rules made under an Act. The majority opinion disagreed, stating that the rules, once published, had the effect as if enacted in the Act, thus falling within the scope of Section 432.

4. Interpretation of Section 30(bb) and 30(bbb) of the Indian Mines Act, 1923:
The court examined whether the rules made under these sections were consistent with the Act. The dissenting opinion found that the rules exceeded the powers conferred by these sections, while the majority opinion held that the rules were consistent with the legislative intent and necessary for the welfare of mine workers.

5. Application of Article 228 of the Constitution:
The court was asked to apply Article 228, which allows the High Court to withdraw cases involving substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. The court found that no substantial question of law regarding the interpretation of the Constitution was involved in these cases, thus Article 228 was not applicable.

6. Double Delegation Principle:
The dissenting opinion argued that the rules involved double delegation, as the Central Government delegated its rule-making power to the competent authority. The majority opinion held that there was no double delegation, as the competent authority's role was administrative, not legislative.

7. Constitutionality under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution:
The rules were challenged as violating the fundamental right to carry on any occupation, trade, or business. The court held that the restrictions imposed by the rules were reasonable and in the interest of the general public, thus not violating Article 19(1)(g).

8. Manager's Liability under Section 16 of the Indian Mines Act, 1923:
The court examined whether managers could be held liable for contraventions of the rules. The court held that under Section 16, managers, along with owners and agents, were responsible for ensuring compliance with the Act and the rules made thereunder.

9. Continuing Offence under Section 42 of the Indian Mines Act, 1923:
The court considered whether the failure to construct creches and pithead baths constituted a continuing offence. The court held that the contravention was a continuing offence, and therefore, the prosecution was not barred by the limitation period under Section 42.

Conclusion:
The majority opinion upheld the validity of the Mines Creche Rules, 1946, and the Coal Mines Pithead Bath Rules, 1946, finding them consistent with the legislative intent and necessary for the welfare of mine workers. The reference under Section 432, Criminal P. C., was deemed competent, and the rules were found not to involve double delegation or violate Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Managers were held liable under Section 16 of the Indian Mines Act, 1923, and the contraventions were considered continuing offences. The dissenting opinion, however, found the rules invalid and the reference incompetent.