Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The Appeals Nos. 100 and 101 need not detain us long. For whatever be the controversy on other questions as regards the Regulations of 1926 being in force after the repeal of the Mines Act of 1923 and as regards the alleged violation of Art. 20(1) of the Constitution, there is no manner of doubt that the High Court is right in holding that the managing agents of the colliery company are neither the "owner" of the coal mines nor the "manager" nor "agent" thereof. It was not even suggested before us that the managing agents are either managers or agents. "Agent" has been defined in the Act, as the representative of the owner in respect of the management, control and direction of the mines and managing agent of the company in no sense falls within this definition. "Manager" is not defined, but s. 17 of the Act provides that every mine 3hall be under one manager who shall have the prescribed qualifications and shall be responsible for the control, management, supervision and directions of the mines, and the owner and agent of every mine shall appoint himself or some other person having such qualifications to be such manager. In the Amlabad Colliery Mr. Kumud Ranjan Dutt was admittedly appointed the manager and it was on that basis that proceedings were commenced against him. The managing agent of the company was not and could not be the manager of the Amlabad Colliery. It was urged however that the managing agents of the colliery company are in occupation of the mines and thus fall within the definition of the word "owner" in s. 2(1) of the Act. The relevant portion of the definition of owner in s. 2(1) runs thus: " "Owner" when used in relation to a mine, means any person who is the immediate proprietor or lessee or occupier of the(,, mine or of any part thereof". The argument is that the managing agents exercise, by reason of their being managing agents of the colliery company, possession over the mine; and so "occupy" the mine. Though the word "occupier" is not defined in the Act it is patently absurd to suppose that any and every person exercising possession over the mine, is an "occupier" and thus an owner of the mine, for the purpose of the Mines Act. From the very collocation of the words "immediate proprietor, or lessee or occupier of the mine", it is abundantly clear that only a person whose occupation is of the same character, that is, occupation by a proprietor or a lessee-by way of possession on his behalf and not on behalf of somebody else is meant by the word "occupier" in the definition. Thus, a trespasser in wrongful possession to the exclusion of the rightful owner would be an occupier of the mine, and so be an "owner" for the purposes of the Act. When however a servant or agent of the proprietor or lessee of a mine is in possession of a mine, he is in possession on behalf of his master or his principal, and not on his own behalf. It would be unreasonable to think that the legislature intended such servants or agents liable and responsible as "owner" of the mine. possession on behalf of another was sufficient to make a person "occupier" within the meaning of s. 2(1), every manager would be an occupier and thus have all the responsibilities of an "owner". Many "agents" of the proprietors or lessee of the mine would similarly be "occupier" and therefore "owner". If that had been the intention of the legislature it would have been unnecessary and indeed meaningless to mention "agent" and "manager" in addition to the word "owner" in s. 18 of the Act,.,in the important provision as to who will be responsible for the proper carrying on of operations in the mine in regard to the provisions of the Act and Regulations and bye-laws and orders made thereunder.