{"id":159736,"date":"1967-08-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1967-08-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-mining-engineer-east-india-vs-rameswar-and-ors-on-8-august-1967"},"modified":"2016-09-29T16:57:58","modified_gmt":"2016-09-29T11:27:58","slug":"chief-mining-engineer-east-india-vs-rameswar-and-ors-on-8-august-1967","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-mining-engineer-east-india-vs-rameswar-and-ors-on-8-august-1967","title":{"rendered":"Chief Mining Engineer East India … vs Rameswar And Ors on 8 August, 1967"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Chief Mining Engineer East India … vs Rameswar And Ors on 8 August, 1967<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 218, \t\t 1968 SCR (1) 140<\/div>\n
Author: Shelat<\/div>\n
Bench: Shelat, J.M.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCHIEF MINING ENGINEER EAST INDIA COAL CO.  LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAMESWAR AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n08\/08\/1967\n\nBENCH:\nSHELAT, J.M.\nBENCH:\nSHELAT, J.M.\nBHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA\nVAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.\n\nCITATION:\n 1968 AIR  218\t\t  1968 SCR  (1) 140\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1970 SC 237\t (5,13,14)\n F\t    1971 SC1902\t (13)\n R\t    1972 SC 451\t (17)\n RF\t    1972 SC1579\t (4)\n R\t    1974 SC1604\t (12)\n RF\t    1975 SC 171\t (22)\n R\t    1975 SC1898\t (6,7)\n E&R\t    1978 SC 995\t (4)\n\n\nACT:\nCoal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Scheme Act, 1948 (46  of\n1948)--Bonus under the Scheme--Jurisdiction of Labour  Court\nunder  s.  33C of Industrial  Disputes\tAct--Limitation\t for\napplications--Eligibility for bonus.\nIndustrial  Disputes  Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)  s.  33C  Bonus\nunder\tCoal   Mines  Provident\t Fund\tand   Bonus   Scheme\nAct--Jurisdiction    of\t  Labour    Court--Limitation\t for\napplication.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe respondents--workmen filed applications in 1962 claiming\nbonus  under  the Scheme framed by  the\t Central  Government\nunder  the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes\tAct,\n1948  and railway fares and leave wages from  1948  onwards.\nThe  Labour  Court, Dhanbad allowed their  claims  under  S.\n33C(2)\tof  the\t Industrial Disputes Act,  1947,  which,  in\nappeals\t to  this Court, the  appellant-Company\t challenged,\ncontending, that (1) the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to\ntry   these   applications  under  S.\t33C(2);\t  (ii)\t the\napplications  were  barred by Limitation prescribed  by\t the\nbonus Scheme and\/or due to laches. and (iii) under the\tsaid\nScheme\tthe workmen were not entitled to bonus as they\twere\nemployed as domestic servants.\nHELD:The appeals must fail.\n(i)The right to the benefit which is sought to be computed\nmust be an existing one, that is to say, already adjudicated\nupon or provided for and must arise in the course of and  in\nrelation to the relationship' between an industrial  workman\nand  his employer.  Since the scope of sub-see. 2 of s.\t 33C\nis  wider than that of sub-s 1, and the sub-section  is\t not\nconfined to cases arising under an award settlement or under\nthe provisions of Chapter VA there is no reason to hold that\na  benefit provided by statute or a Scheme made\t thereunder,\nwithout there being anything contrary under such statute  or\ns.  33C(2), cannot fall within sub-section 2.  Consequently.\nthe benefit provided in the bonus scheme made under the Coal\nMines  Provident  Fund\tand Bonus Schemes  Act,\t 1948  which\nremained  to be computed must fall under sub-section  2\t and\nthe Labour Court therefore had jurisdiction to entertain and\ntry such a claim, it being a claim in respect of an existing\nright arising from the relationship of an industrial workman\nand his employer. [144B-D].\nPunjab National Bank Ldt. v. Kharbanda<\/a> [1962] Supp. 2 S.C.R.\n977  Central  Bank of India v. Rajagopalan<\/a> [1964]  3  S.C.R.\n140, and Bombay Gas Co., Ltd. v. Gopal Bhiva<\/a> [1964] 3 S.C.R.\n709 relied on,\n(ii)There  is  no justification for inducting a\t period\t of\nlimitation   provided  in  the\tLimitation  Act\t  into\t the\nprovisions   of\t s.  33C(2)  which  do\tnot  lay  down\t any\nlimitation.  It is a matter of some significance that though\nthe  legislature amended section 33C by Act 36 of  1964\t and\nintroduced limitation in that Section, it did so by means of\na  proviso only in respect of claims made under\t sub-sec.  1\nbut  did  not provide any such limitation for  claims  under\nsub-sec. 2. [14-4H-145B].\nBombay\tGas  Co.  Ltd. v. Gopal Bhiva<\/a> [1964]  3\t S.C.R.\t 709\nrelied on.\n141\nThe  period  of three years of limitation  provided  for  by\nclause\t(3)  of\t S.  9A of  ;the  Bonus\t Scheme\t applies  to\napplications  for payment by the Coal Mines  Provident\tFund\nCommissioner  from  the\t deposit  made\tin  the\t  Government\ntreasury and has no application to claims under\nS.   33C(2) which makes no provision for limitation.  [145D-\nE].\n(iii)Two conditions are necessary to render an employee\nineligible  for\t Bonus under S. 1 of the Bonus\tScheme:\t (1)\nthat  he  is  employed as a mali, a sweeper  or\t a  domestic\nservant, and (2) that he performs during the relevant period\ndomestic or personal work.  To render an employee ineligible\nfor  bonus  under this exception both the capacity  and\t the\nnature\tof work are relevant factors.  It follows that\teven\nthough\tan  employee is employed as a mali, a sweeper  or  a\ndomestic  servant  if he does non-domestic  or\tnon-personal\nwork  he will be entitled to bonus and would lose his  right\nto  A  only  during that period that  he  does\tdomestic  or\npersonal work.\t [146B-C].\nBhowra\tColliery v. Its Workmen,<\/a> [1962] L.L.J.\t378,  relied\non.\nOn  the\t evidence,  the respondents  were  employed  in\t the\ncolliery,  they\t were  not assigned the\t exclusive  duty  of\nsupplying water at the residence of the junior officers\t but\nthey supplied water at certain pit heads.  So the  exception\ndid not apply.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 256–267 of
\n1966.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals by special leave from the Award dated April 6,\t1964
\nof  the\t Central  Government Labour Court,  Dhanbad  in\t Ap-
\nplications L.C. Nos. 237 \/ 245, 228 \/ 247, 238 \/ 250, 230  \/
\n252, 239 \/ 254, 229\/255 of 1962.\n<\/p>\n
H.R. Gokhale and D. N. Gupta, for the appellant (in all\t the
\nappeals).\n<\/p>\n
Janardan Sharma, for the respondents (in all the appeals).
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nShelat,\t J.-These appeals by the special leave arise out  of
\napplications  filed  by\t workmen  of  the  appellant-company
\nclaiming  bonus\t under\tthe Scheme  framed  by\tthe  Central
\nGovernment  under the, Coal Mines Provident Fund  and  Bonus
\nSchemes\t Act, 46 of 1948 and railway fares and\tleave  wages
\nunder  the  award  of  the  Industrial\tTribunal   (Colliery
\nDisputes) which came into effect as from February 22,  1954.
\nThe  Central  Government Labour Court\tat  Dhanbad  allowed
\ntheir claim under section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes
\nAct, 1947.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.   Gokhale  for  the\t appellant-company  challenged\t the
\ncorrectness  of the Labour Court’s decision and\t raised\t the
\nfollowing contentions : –\n<\/p>\n
(1)  that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to try  these
\napplications under s. 33C (2):\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)because s. 33C(2) contemplates\t recovery
\n\t      of money payable under an award, settlement or
\n\t      under  the  provisions of Chapter\t VA  of\t the
\n\t      Industrial Disputes Act only
\n\t\t\t\t   142<\/span>
\n\t      and  not\tunder any other\t statute  or  scheme
\n\t      framed there under;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)that under s. 33C(2) the benefit capable
\n\t      of being computed in terms of money is a\tnon-
\n\t      monetary\tbenefit\t and not a claim  for  money
\n\t      itself; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c)that\tthe  proceedings  under\t  section
\n\t      33C(2)  being  in\t the  nature  of   execution
\n\t      proceedings  substantial questions between  an
\n\t      employer\t and   his   employee\tcannot\t  be
\n\t      adjudicated  by  the Labour Court\t under\tthis
\n\t      section;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(2)that\t in  any case these applications  were\tbarred\tby
\nlimitation prescribed by the said bonus Scheme and\/or due to
\nlaches on the part of the respondents-,
\n(3)that\t under\tthe said Scheme the  respondents  are  not
\nentitled to bonus as they were employed as domestic servants
\nand were during the relevant period performing domestic\t and
\npersonal work; and
\n(4)that the direction to pay bonus for the period prior to
\nthe  dates on which these respondents were employed was\t in-
\nvalid.\n<\/p>\n
The  contention\t as  to jurisdiction  of  the  Labour  Court
\ndepends on the true construction of s. 33C(2) as it stood in
\n1962  when  these  applications were filed  and\t before\t its
\namendment by Act 36 of 1964.  Section 33C(2) has so far been
\nthe subject matter of decision by this Court in three cases,
\nviz.,  Punjab  National Bank Ltd. v.  Kharbanda<\/a>(1),  Central
\nBank  of India v. Rajagopalan<\/a>(2) and Bombay Gas Co. Ltd.  v.
\nGopal Bhiva<\/a>(3).\n<\/p>\n
The  following propositions on the question as to the  scope
\nof S.\t  33C(2) are deducible from these three decisions:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (1)The  legislative history indicates  that
\n\t      the  legislature, after providing broadly\t for
\n\t      the  investigation and settlement of  disputes
\n\t      on   the\tbasis  of   collective\t bargaining,
\n\t      recognised the need of individual workmen of a
\n\t      speedy  remedy  to  enforce  their   existing,
\n\t      individual  rights and therefore\tinserted  s.
\n\t      33A  in  1950 and S. 33C in 1956.\t  These\t two
\n\t      sections illustrate cases in which  individual
\n\t      workmen  can  enforce  their  rights   without
\n\t      having  to  take\trecourse  to  s.  10(1)\t and
\n\t      without  having  to depend on their  union  to
\n\t      espouse their case.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)In    view   of   this\t   history    two
\n\t      considerations  are relevant while  construing
\n\t      the   scope  of  s.  33C.\t  Where\t  industrial
\n\t      disputes arise between workmen acting  collec-
\n\t      tively and their employers such disputes\tmust
\n\t      be  adjudicated upon in the manner  prescribed
\n\t      by the Act, as for
\n\t      (1) [1962] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 977.\t (2)  [1964]
\n\t      3 S.C.R. 140.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (3) [1964] 3 S.C.R. 709.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      143<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      instance under s. 10(1).\tBut having regard to
\n\t      the  legislative\tpolicy to provide  a  speedy
\n\t      remedy  to Individual’ workmen  for  enforcing
\n\t      their   existing\trights,\t it  would  not\t  be
\n\t      reasonable  to exclude their  existing  rights
\n\t      sought   to  be  implemented   by\t  individual
\n\t      workmen.\tTherefore though in determining\t the
\n\t      scope  of s. 33C care should be taken  not  to
\n\t      exclude  cases which legitimately fall  within
\n\t      its  purview, cases which fall,  for  instance
\n\t      under  s.\t 10(1), cannot be brought  under  s.
\n\t      33C;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (3)Section 33C which is in terms similar to
\n\t      those in
\n\t      s. 20 ofthe Industrial Disputes  (Appellate
\n\t      Tribunal) Act,,
\n\t      1950  is\ta  provision in\t the  nature  of  an
\n\t      executing provision;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (4)Section  33C(1) applies to  cases  where
\n\t      money  is due to a workman under an  award  or
\n\t      settlement  or  under Chapter VA\tof  the\t Act
\n\t      already\tcalculated   and   ascertained\t and
\n\t      therefore\t there\tis  no\tdispute\t about\t its
\n\t      computation.   But sub-section 2 applies\tboth
\n\t      to non-monetary as well as monetary  benefits.
\n\t      In  the  case of monetary benefit\t it  applies
\n\t      where   such   benefit  though  due   is\t not
\n\t      calculated  and there is a dispute  about\t its
\n\t      calculation;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (5)Section 33C(2) takes within its  purview
\n\t      cases of workmen who claim that the benefit to
\n\t      which they are entitled should be computed  in
\n\t      terms  of money even though the right  to\t the
\n\t      benefit  on  which  their claim  is  based  is
\n\t      disputed\tby their employers.  It is  open  to
\n\t      the  Labour  Court to interpret the  award  or
\n\t      settlement on which the workmen’s right rests.
\n\t      (6)   The\t fact that the words  of  limitation
\n\t      used in s. 20(2)\tof the\tIndustrial  Disputes
\n\t      (Appellate  Tribunal Act. 1950 are omitted  in
\n\t      s.  33C(2) shows that the scope, of s.  33C(2)
\n\t      is  wider than that of s. 33C(1).\t  Therefore,
\n\t      whereas  sub-section 1 is confined  to  claims
\n\t      arising  under  an  award\t or  settlement\t  or
\n\t      Chapter  VA. claims which can  be\t entertained
\n\t      under sub-section are not so confined to those
\n\t      under an award, settlement or Chapter VA.
\n\t      (7)Though the court did not indicate  which
\n\t      cases other than those under subsection  would
\n\t      fall  under  sub-section\t2.  it\tpointed\t out
\n\t      illustrative cases which would not fall  under
\n\t      sub-section  2,  viz., cases which  Would\t ap-
\n\t      propriately  be adjudicated under s. 10(1)  or
\n\t      claims  which have already been  the  subject-
\n\t      matter  of settlement to which ss. 18  and  19
\n\t      would apply.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (8)Since\tproceedings under s.  33C(2)  are
\n\t      analogous\t to  execution\tproceeding  and\t the
\n\t      Labour  Court called upon to compute in  terms
\n\t      of  money the benefit claimed by a workman  is
\n\t      in such cases in the position of an  executing
\n\t      court.  the  Labour Court like  the  executing
\n\t      court
\n\t      144<\/span>
\n\t      in execution proceedings governed by the\tCode
\n\t      of  Civil\t Procedure, is\tcompetent  under  s.
\n\t      33C(2)  to interpret the award  or  settlement
\n\t      where the benefit is claimed under such  award
\n\t      or  settlement and it would be open to  it  to
\n\t      consider\tthe plea of nullity where the  award
\n\t      is made without jurisdiction.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It is clear that the right to the benefit which is sought to
\nbe computed must be an existing one, that is to say, already
\nadjudicated  upon  or  provided for and must  arise  in\t the
\ncourse\tof  and in relation to the relationship\t between  an
\nindustrial  workman  and his employer.\tSince the  scope  of
\nsub-sec.  2  is wider than that of subsec.  1 and  the\tsub-
\nsection\t is  not confined to cases arising under  an  award,
\nsettlement or under the, provisions of Chapter VA. there  is
\nno reason to hold that a benefit provided by a statute or  a
\nScheme\t made  thereunder,  without  there  being   anything
\ncontrary  tinder  such\tstatute or s.  33C(2),\tcannot\tfall
\nwithin sub-section 2. Consequently, the benefit provided  in
\nthe  bonus scheme made under the Coal Mines  Provident\tFund
\nand  Bonus  Schemes Act, 1948 which remains to\tbe  computed
\nmust fall under sub-section 2 and the Labour Court therefore
\nhad jurisdiction to entertain and try such a claim, it being
\na  claim  in respect of an existing right arising  from\t the
\nrelationship of an industrial workman and his employer.\t The
\ncontention that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction because
\nthe claim arose under the said scheme or because the benefit
\nwas monetary or because it involved any substantial question
\nbetween\t the  Company and the workmen must, in view  of\t the
\nsaid decisions, fail.\n<\/p>\n
These- applications were made in 1962 though they related to
\nclaims for the years commencing from 1948 and onwards.\t The
\ncontention  therefore was that part of these claims, at\t any
\nrate,  must be held to be barred either by limitation or  by
\nreason of laches on the part of the workmen.  The answer  to
\nthis  contention is clearly provided in the case  of  Bombay
\nGas   Co.(1)   where  a\t distinction   was   drawn   between
\nconsiderations\t which\twould  prevail\tin   an\t  industrial
\nadjudication  and those which must prevail in a\t case  filed
\nunder  a statutory provision such as S. 33C(2).\t This  court
\npointed\t out  there that whereas an  industrial\t dispute  is
\nentertained  on\t grounds of social justice and\ttherefore  a
\nTribunal  would\t in  such a  case  take\t into  consideration
\nfactors\t such  as delay or laches, such\t considerations\t are
\nirrelevant to claims made under a statutory provision unless
\nsuch  provision\t lays down any period  of  limitation.\t The
\nCourt  held  that  there is no\tjustification  in  inductina
\nperiod of limitation provided in the Limitation Act into the
\nprovisions of s. 33C(2) which do not lay down any limitation
\nand that such a provision can only be made by legislature if
\nit  thought  fit and not by the court on an analogy  or\t any
\nother\tsuch  consideration.   It  is  a  matter   of\tsome
\nsignificance that though the legislature
\n(1)[1964] 3 S.C.R. 709.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    145<\/span><\/p>\n
amended\t section  33C  by  Act 36  of  1964  and  introduced
\nlimitation  in the section, it did so by means of a  proviso
\nonly in respect of claims made under sub-sec.  1 but did not
\nprovide\t any limitation for claims under sub-section  2.  In
\nview  of this fact and the decision in Bombay Gas  Company’s
\ncase(1)\t Mr.  Gokhale conceded that he could not  press\t the
\ncontention that the present claims were barred by limitation
\nor laches.\n<\/p>\n
Some reliance however was sought to be placed on cl. 3 of s.
\n9A of the Bonus Scheme.\t Section 9(A) contemplates that\t the
\nemployer  has  first  to tender the  bonus  payable  to\t the
\nworkman\t under\tthe Scheme.  If the bonus, in spite  of\t the
\ntender, remains unclaimed for six months after such  tender,
\nhe  is required to have it credited in the  Reserve  Account
\nestablished under the Scheme.  The section then provides  by
\ncl.  2\tthat the bonus amount shall be paid in\tthe  seventh
\nmonth  from  the end of the quarter to which it\t relates  by
\ndepositing  it\tin  such  government  treasury\tas  may\t  be
\nprescribed and the original chalan of such deposit shall  be
\nsent  within  the  time set out therein to  the\t Coal  Mines
\nProvident Fund Commissioner.  Clause (3) then provides\tthat
\na workman who desires payment of arrears of bonus payable to
\nhim shall apply to the said Commissioner within three  years
\nfrom  the  last\t date  of the quarter  to  which  the  bonus
\nrelates.   The\tperiod\tof three years\tof  limitation\tthus
\napplies to applications for payment by the Commissioner from
\nthe  deposit made in the treasury and has no application  to
\nclaims under s. 33C(2) which as aforesaid makes no provision
\nfor limitation
\nThe   contention   that\t the   respondents-workmen,   though
\nadmittedly the employees of the appellant company, were\t not
\nentitled  to  bonus  under the Scheme  as  they\t were  doing
\ndomestic and personal work, viz., of supplying water at\t the
\nresidence   of\tcertain\t junior\t officers  of  the   Company
\nthroughout  the relevant period, is also not  tenable.\t The
\nrelevant  portion of s. 1 of the Bonus Scheme relied  on  by
\nthe Company reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “1. Class of employees eligible to qualify for
\n\t      bonus  Except as hereinafter  provided,  every
\n\t      employee\tin a coal mine to which this  Scheme
\n\t      applies  shall  be  eligible  to\tqualify\t for
\n\t      bonus.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Exceptions-An  employee in a coal\t mine  shall
\n\t      not  be entitled to a bonus under\t the  Scheme
\n\t      for the period during which-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)………………………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)he  is\t employed as a mali,  sweeper  or
\n\t      domestic\tservant\t on  domestic  or   personal
\n\t      work………”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(1) [1964] 3 S.C.R. 709.\n<\/p>\n
my(N)ISCI-12
\n146<\/span>
\nUnder  this section every employee of the Company except  as
\ntherein\t provided  is  eligible for  bonus.   The  exception
\nprovides  that a person though an employee in a colliery  is
\nnot entitled to bonus inter alia for the period during which
\nhe  is\temployed as a mali, sweeper or domestic\t servant  on
\ndomestic  and personal work.  Two conditions  are  therefore
\nnecessary  to render an employee ineligible for bonus :\t (1)
\nthat  he  is  employed as a mali, a sweeper  or\t a  domestic
\nservant and (2) that he performs during the relevant  period
\ndomestic or personal work.  To render an employee ineligible
\nfor  bonus  under this exception both the capacity  and\t the
\nnature\tof work are relevant factors.  It follows that\teven
\nthough\tan  employee is employed as a mali, a sweeper  or  a
\ndomestic  servant  if he does non-domestic  or\tnon-personal
\nwork  he will be entitled to bonus and would lose his  right
\nto  it\tonly  during that period that he  does\tdomestic  or
\npersonal  work.\t In Bhowra Collicry v. Its  Workmen<\/a>(1)\tthis
\nCourt  construed  this very exception and held that  if\t the
\nconcerned  workmen  were  employed  and\t worked\t as   garden
\nmazdoors and malis to look after the gardens attached to the
\nbungalows  occupied by the Colliery officers they would\t not
\nbe eligible for the bonus notwithstanding the fact that\t the
\nbungalows  were\t owned\tby the Colliery,  the  workmen\twere
\nColliery’s  employees and worked under the Company’s  orders
\nand  were liable to be transferred from one job to  another.
\nThus  the  employment of a person as a mali,  sweeper  or  a
\ndomestic  servant  and\tdischarge  by  him  of\tdomestic  or
\npersonal  work as distinguished from non-domestic  and\tnon-
\npersonal  work,\t i.e., work relating to\t the  colliery,\t are
\nnecessary conditions before the exception can apply.
\nIn view of the admitted position that the  respondents-work-
\nmen  were employees of the Company the burden of proof\tthat
\nthey  fell within the exception is clearly on  the  Company.
\nIn  its written statement the Company no doubt averred\tthat
\nthese workmen were employed as domestic servants and carried
\nout  domestic  and personal duties and\twere  therefore\t not
\neligible  for the bonus.  But it is clear from the  evidence
\nof  the\t two  witnesses examined by  the  Company  that\t the
\nCompany failed to establish either that the respondents were
\nemployed as domestic servants or that they were\t exclusively
\nen-aged\t on domestic or personal, work.\t On the other  hand,
\nfrom the evidence of Sibu, one of the respondent workmen, it
\nappears that the respondents were employed in the  colliery,
\nthat they were not assigned the exclusive duty of  supplying
\nwater, at the residence of the junior officers but that they
\nsupplied  water at certain pit heads.  On this evidence\t the
\nLabour\tCourt has given a finding that they were engaged  in
\nsupplying water at certain points in the colliery.  In these
\ncircumstances  the Labour Court was justified in  coming  to
\nthe conclusion that the exception did not apply.
\n(1) [1962] L.L.J. 378.\n<\/p>\n
147<\/span><\/p>\n
The last contention which remains to be considered was\tthat
\nthe Labour Court was not right in awarding the claim of\t the
\nworkmen in full, both as regards bonus and railway fares and
\nleave  wages.\tAccording  to the  Company,  none  of  these
\nworkmen\t was  in  its employment in  1948,  that  they\twere
\nappointed at different dates and that they would at best  be
\nentitled to bonus   for the period during which they were so
\nemployed.  This contention has, however, no force in view of
\nthe  Company  not  having disputed  the\t quantum  of  relief
\nclaimed\t by  the workmen both as regards bonus as  also\t the
\nrailway fares and leave wages.\n<\/p>\n
The appeals are dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Y. P.\n<\/p>\n
148<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Chief Mining Engineer East India … vs Rameswar And Ors on 8 August, 1967 Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 218, 1968 SCR (1) 140 Author: Shelat Bench: Shelat, J.M. PETITIONER: CHIEF MINING ENGINEER EAST INDIA COAL CO. LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: RAMESWAR AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/08\/1967 BENCH: SHELAT, J.M. BENCH: SHELAT, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-159736","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nChief Mining Engineer East India ... vs Rameswar And Ors on 8 August, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-mining-engineer-east-india-vs-rameswar-and-ors-on-8-august-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chief Mining Engineer East India ... vs Rameswar And Ors on 8 August, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-mining-engineer-east-india-vs-rameswar-and-ors-on-8-august-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1967-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-29T11:27:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-mining-engineer-east-india-vs-rameswar-and-ors-on-8-august-1967#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-mining-engineer-east-india-vs-rameswar-and-ors-on-8-august-1967\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chief Mining Engineer East India … vs Rameswar And Ors on 8 August, 1967\",\"datePublished\":\"1967-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-29T11:27:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-mining-engineer-east-india-vs-rameswar-and-ors-on-8-august-1967\"},\"wordCount\":2550,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-mining-engineer-east-india-vs-rameswar-and-ors-on-8-august-1967#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-mining-engineer-east-india-vs-rameswar-and-ors-on-8-august-1967\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-mining-engineer-east-india-vs-rameswar-and-ors-on-8-august-1967\",\"name\":\"Chief Mining Engineer East India ... vs Rameswar And Ors on 8 August, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1967-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-29T11:27:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-mining-engineer-east-india-vs-rameswar-and-ors-on-8-august-1967#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-mining-engineer-east-india-vs-rameswar-and-ors-on-8-august-1967\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-mining-engineer-east-india-vs-rameswar-and-ors-on-8-august-1967#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chief Mining Engineer East India … vs Rameswar And Ors on 8 August, 1967\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Chief Mining Engineer East India ... vs Rameswar And Ors on 8 August, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-mining-engineer-east-india-vs-rameswar-and-ors-on-8-august-1967","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chief Mining Engineer East India ... vs Rameswar And Ors on 8 August, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-mining-engineer-east-india-vs-rameswar-and-ors-on-8-august-1967","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1967-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-29T11:27:58+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-mining-engineer-east-india-vs-rameswar-and-ors-on-8-august-1967#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-mining-engineer-east-india-vs-rameswar-and-ors-on-8-august-1967"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chief Mining Engineer East India … vs Rameswar And Ors on 8 August, 1967","datePublished":"1967-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-29T11:27:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-mining-engineer-east-india-vs-rameswar-and-ors-on-8-august-1967"},"wordCount":2550,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-mining-engineer-east-india-vs-rameswar-and-ors-on-8-august-1967#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-mining-engineer-east-india-vs-rameswar-and-ors-on-8-august-1967","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-mining-engineer-east-india-vs-rameswar-and-ors-on-8-august-1967","name":"Chief Mining Engineer East India ... vs Rameswar And Ors on 8 August, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1967-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-29T11:27:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-mining-engineer-east-india-vs-rameswar-and-ors-on-8-august-1967#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-mining-engineer-east-india-vs-rameswar-and-ors-on-8-august-1967"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-mining-engineer-east-india-vs-rameswar-and-ors-on-8-august-1967#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chief Mining Engineer East India … vs Rameswar And Ors on 8 August, 1967"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/159736","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=159736"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/159736\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=159736"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=159736"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=159736"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}