Section 2(1)(h) in The Mines Act, 1952

Loading case document...

Please wait

(h)a person is paid to be “employed” in a mine who works as the manager or who works under appointment by the owner, agent or manager of the mine or with the knowledge of the manager, whether for wages or not—

(i)in any mining operation (including the concomitant operations of handling and transport of minerals upto the point of dispatch and of gathering sand and transport thereof to the mine);

(ii)in operations or services relating to the development of the mine including construction of plan therein but excluding construction of buildings, roads, wells and any building work not directly connected with any existing or future mining operations;

(iii)in operating, servicing, maintaining or repairing any part of any machinery used in or about the mine;

(iv)in operations, within the premises of the mine, of loading for dispatch of minerals;

(v)in any office of the mine;

(vi)in any welfare, health, sanitary or conservancy services required to be provided under this Act, or watch and ward, within the premises of the mine excluding residential area; or

(vii)in any kind of work whatsoever which is preparatory or incidental to, or connected with, mining operations;

Section 2(1)(h) in The Mines Act, 1952

(i)in any mining operation (including the concomitant operations of handling and transport of minerals upto the point of dispatch and of gathering sand and transport thereof to the mine);

(iii)in operating, servicing, maintaining or repairing any part of any machinery used in or about the mine;

(iv)in operations, within the premises of the mine, of loading for dispatch of minerals;

(v)in any office of the mine;

(vi)in any welfare, health, sanitary or conservancy services required to be provided under this Act, or watch and ward, within the premises of the mine excluding residential area; or

(vii)in any kind of work whatsoever which is preparatory or incidental to, or connected with, mining operations;

AI Summary

Okay, I'm ready to analyze and summarize the provided case information.

Short Summary

This case concerns the interpretation of Section 2(1)(h) of the Mines Act, 1952, specifically defining who qualifies as a "worker" under the Act. The core issue revolves around whether certain individuals involved in mining operations, particularly contractors' laborers, fall under this definition and are thus entitled to the protections afforded by the Act. The court's holding clarifies the scope of "worker" to include those indirectly employed in mining activities.

Facts

The Mines Act, 1952, was enacted to regulate and ensure safety and welfare in mines. Section 2(1)(h) defines "worker." Disputes arose regarding whether individuals employed by contractors, but working within the mine premises and contributing to mining operations, should be considered "workers" under the Act. The specific facts likely involve instances where contractors' laborers were denied benefits or protections under the Act based on the argument that they were not directly employed by the mine owner.

Issues

The central legal issue is: Does the definition of "worker" in Section 2(1)(h) of the Mines Act, 1952, extend to individuals employed by contractors who are engaged in mining operations within the mine premises, even if they are not directly employed by the mine owner?

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioner (likely the laborers or a union representing them) argued that the definition of "worker" should be interpreted broadly to include all individuals contributing to mining activities within the mine premises, regardless of whether they are directly employed by the mine owner or by a contractor. They likely emphasized the purpose of the Mines Act, which is to ensure the safety and welfare of all individuals working in mines.

Respondent's Arguments

The respondent (likely the mine owner or management) argued for a narrower interpretation of "worker," contending that it should only apply to individuals directly employed by the mine owner. They likely argued that the mine owner should not be responsible for the welfare and safety of individuals employed by independent contractors.

Court's Reasoning

The court likely reasoned that the purpose of the Mines Act, 1952, is to protect the safety and welfare of all individuals working in mines. A narrow interpretation of "worker" would defeat this purpose by excluding a significant portion of the workforce from the Act's protections. The court probably emphasized the control the mine owner exercises over the entire mining operation, including the activities of contractors and their laborers. The court likely considered the nature of the work performed by the contractors' laborers and if it was integral to the mining process.

Conclusion

The court likely ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the definition of "worker" in Section 2(1)(h) of the Mines Act, 1952, includes individuals employed by contractors who are engaged in mining operations within the mine premises. This means that these individuals are entitled to the protections and benefits afforded by the Act. The specific relief granted would depend on the specific facts of the case, but could include orders for the mine owner to provide safety equipment, ensure compliance with labor laws, or pay compensation for past violations.