Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. Mr.M.Sekar, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Rules issued under the Explosives Act, are in conflict with the amendments now proposed, in respect of the following:-

(i) Rule 10(7) of the Explosives Rules, 2008, prohibits the employment of persons below the age of 18 years, persons who are in a state of intoxication and persons who are mentally or physically challenged. There is no restriction regarding upper age limit, but the impugned amendment prohibits the employment of persons above 55 years of age, in explosive areas. Rule 11(1) of the Explosives Rules, 2008, requires all operations associated with the handling of explosives to be carried out under the supervision of a competent person. Sub Rules (2) and (4) of Rule 11 mandates that explosives shall not be manufactured in any building except under the supervision of a competent person and that persons holding Foreman's Certificate shall be competent to be employed as such.

(ii) Rule 99 of the Explosives Rules, indicates that the licenses and certificates for specific purposes are to be granted by the authorities specified in Part 1 of Schedule IV. Rules 103 and 107 of the Explosives Rules prescribe the procedure for grant of licenses and certificates. Part 1 of Schedule IV indicates that the license to manufacture fireworks or gunpowder or both exceeding 500 kilo grams at any one time shall be the Chief Controller or Controller of Explosives authorised by the Chief Controller. This license is issued in Form LE-1. The Foreman's Certificate is issued in Form LE-11 by the Controller of Explosives. Form 4 prescribes 2 sets of "CONDITIONS OF VARIOUS LICENSES". In SET-1, the conditions of license to manufacture fireworks or gunpowder or both not exceeding 15 kilo grams at any one time, in respect of Article 1(a) are prescribed. In SET-2, the conditions of license to manufacture fireworks in respect of Articles 1(b) and (c) granted by the Chief Controller or Controller of Explosives, are listed. These conditions contain minute details with regard to the place of storage of ingredients, number of persons to be allowed at any time, the working hours for the manufacturing activity, the works to be carried out in the buildings etc. Some of these conditions stipulated in SET-1 and SET-2 of Part 4 of Schedule V to the Explosives Rules, 2008, are as follows:-

In the light of the above conditions contained in SET-1 and SET-2 in Part 4 of Schedule V of the Rules, it is contended by Mr.M.Sekar, learned counsel for the petitioner that (i) any prescription regarding buildings (ii) any prescription regarding the persons to be employed (iii) any prescription restricting the time of manufacturing activity to the time between sun rise and sun set and (iv) any prescription regarding installation of electrical appliances, would encroach into the field occupied by the Explosives Rules, 2008 and thus result in repugnancy. Therefore, the prescription contained in the impugned notification regarding the employment of persons above 55 years of age, the construction of blast walls, provision of work benches and tables, the employment of a Supervisor etc., are in conflict with the conditions of license stipulated under the Explosives Rules, 2008.

16. But a careful perusal of Rules 10 and 11 of the Explosives Rules, 2008 and the various prescriptions contained in Schedules IV, V and VII under the Explosives Rules, 2008, would show that none of them is in conflict with the impugned amendment. The fact that the Explosives Rules, 2008, prohibits the employment of persons below the age of 18 years and those who are mentally or physically challenged, is no ground to contend that the prohibition of employment of persons above 55 years of age by the impugned notification, is in conflict. What is prescribed under the Explosives Rules, 2008, is only the minimum age limit for appointment and the two disqualifications for appointment. But the impugned notification prescribes the upper age limit and that too only for employment in explosive areas. In other words, what is prescribed by the impugned notification is only an additional specification. They are to be understood in addition to the specifications prescribed by the Explosives Rules, 2008. Since the State Government, admittedly, has a rule making power, their power to prescribe certain additional requirements or qualifications, cannot be doubted. The Explosives Rules, 2008, does not stipulate even the age of retirement of a person. Therefore, if the State Government prescribes the age of retirement, would it be possible for the petitioner to contend that such prescription goes contrary to the Explosives Rules, 2008 ? I do not think so.