G.j.singh Vs Coal India Ltd. And Anr.

2. Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue raised in this writ petition is covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court passed in W.P.(S) No.2235/2018 (Sahendra Kumar Sinha Vs. Coal India Ltd. & Ors), order dated 04.08.2023, whereby in paragraphs 19, 20 & 21, it has been held as under:-

¶17

2 (WPS No. 4661 of 2012)

¶18

“ 19. In the aforesaid context, it is quite clear that Sections 2(h)(vii) & 2(j) read with Sections 52(8) & 52(10) of the Act of 1952 would show that the Mines Act, 1952 would be applicable where a person employed in a mine is discharged or dismissed from service or quits his employment or is superannuated or dies while in service, whereas the Coal India Executives Leave Rules 2010 would be applicable only to the Executives. Section 2(h) of the Act of 1952 refers to Manager. Section 52 of the Act of 1952 deals with annual leave with wages. It is primarily relatable to entitlement to and release of wages to any person employed in a mine. The word ‘wages’ has not been defined in the Act of 1952, but is defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Wages are ordinarily paid to workmen/labourers. Officers/executives are not paid wages in the sense the term is used with reference to workmen/labourers. As such, the Act of 1952 would not be applicable to the executives working with the subsidiary company of Coal India Limited to whom the Rules of 2010 are applicable.

¶19

20. Thus, it is quite vivid that Sections 52(8) & 52(10) read with Section 2(h) of the Act of 1952 are applicable to Managers working in the mines and the petitioner herein admittedly, was not working in the mines and when he was terminated on 21-12-2015, he was working as Chief Manager (Civil), SECL Headquarter and he had no essential qualifications of a manager and therefore the Rules of 2010, which are applicable to the executives as defined in Rule 3(f) of the Coal India Executives’ Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978, a whole time regular executive cadre working on the surface. Therefore, Rules 12.4.2 & 12.5.1(e) of the Rules of 2010 cannot be said to be in conflict with

¶20

3 (WPS No. 4661 of 2012)

¶21

Sections 52(8) & 52(10) read with Section 2(h) of the Act of 1952, as those provisions are applicable to the Managers under Section 2(h) read with Sections 17, 52(8) & 52(10) of the Act of 1952 and it is not the case of the petitioner that he was working in the mines and thus, he falls within the definition of Manager as contained in Section 2(h) read with Section 17 and he is clearly governed by the definition contained in Rule 3.1 of the Rules of 2010 and in such case, the provisions of the Act of 1952 do not apply to the officers / executives of the subsidiary company of respondent No.1. As such, Rules 12.4.2 & 12.5.1(e) of the Rules of 2010 are neither in conflict nor inconsistent with the provisions of the Act of 1952 and thus, not violative of the provisions of the Act of 1952. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on M/s. Taj Mahal Hotel’s case (supra), Babaji Kondaji Garad (supra) and Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement (supra) are quite distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case.

¶22

21. As a fallout and consequence of the aforesaid discussion, Rules 12.4.2 & 12.5.1(e) of the Rules of 2010 are held to be intra vires and they are not unconstitutional, and accordingly, the writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Rules 12.4.2 & 12.5.1(e) of the Rules of 2010 deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).”

¶23

3. Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents also submits that the principle of law laid down in Sahendra Kumar Sinha (supra) squarely applies in the facts of this case.

¶24

4 (WPS No. 4661 of 2012)

¶25

4. In view of aforesaid submissions of the parties and since the petitioner at the relevant time was working in SECL, Bilaspur, therefore, the case of the petitioner is covered by the decision of this Court in Sahendra Kumar Sinha (supra) and the principles of law/directions contained in it shall mutatis mutandis apply with full force in petitioner’s case.

¶26

5. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed. No order as to cost(s).

¶27

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶28

@d!t!

G.j.singh v. Coal India Ltd. And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.j.singh v. Coal India Ltd. And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravishankar Harpal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Elsemewar Tirkey Vs Chandradev Yadav

Subaso ( Since Dead) through Legal Representatives Vs Kamesari Bai ( Since Dead) through Legal Representatives

Vijay Kumar Kaushik Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ramkumar Chaturange And Anr. Vs Chhattisgarh State Power Distributor and Ltd. And Ors.

Alok Tiwari Vs Avinash Kumar Saran