- (1.) WITH the consent of the parties, this appeal is taken up for final disposal, without formally admitting it.
(2.) IT appears that the respondent (M/s. DLF Power Ltd.) entered into an agreement with Coal India Ltd. for installation of Power Plants on the land leased to it by Coal India Ltd. The Power Plants were meant for supplying electrical power to the Mines run by two Subsidiary Companies of Coal India Ltd., namely, Central Coal Fields Ltd. (CCL) and Bharat Coking Ltd. (BCCL). On 4.1.1999 the respondent wrote a letter to the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi seeking a clarification to the effect that the aforesaid power plants installed by the respondent would come within the definition of "mine" as occurring in Section 2(j) of the Mines Act, 1952 and thus being covered by the Mines Act, 1952 it be treated as a "mine" and not a "factory" with the definition of this expression as occurring in the Factories Act. The operative part of the aforesaid communication dated 4.1.1999 reads thus : - - "We would therefore be grateful if in view of the unanimous legal opinion received, clarification is issued to the concerned authorities at the Centre as well as the State of Bihar that our plants will be covered under the Mines Act and will be under the jurisdiction of the Central Government." Apparently in an earlier part of the same letter, respondent, relying upon the opinion of the Legal experts, conveyed to the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) that its power plants did not come within the definition of "factory" as contemplated under the Factories Act. This part of the letter reads thus : - - "We have checked up the matter with the legal experts and they all are of the opinion that our captive Power stations at Rajarappa, Giddi and Madhuband will be covered under the Mines Act and not the Factories Act. Copies of the legal opinions are enclosed. It may be noted that one of the legal experts is Labour Advisor of PHD Chambers of Commerce and Industry, which is one of premier Employers Organization in North India. Our Chief Manager -Personnel and Administration has been writing to Regional Labour Commissioner Central to provide clarification on the issue. Copies of the letters are enclosed."
(3.) EVEN while the correspondence between the respondent and the Labour Ministry might have been going on, apparently on a reference made by the Labour Ministry to the Director General of Mines Safety, vide communication dated 13th July, 1999, the Director General of Mines Safety informed the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad that exclusively a Power Station supplying power to a mine may be considered as "a part of the mine" but it could not be considered as a "mine" within the definition of Section 2(j) of the Mines Act 1952 and, accordingly, it was conveyed by the Director General of Mines Safety (DGMS) to the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) that the Respondent's Establishment could not be considered as a "mine" as contemplated by the Mines Act, 1952. It shall be advantageous to refer to the entire text of this letter, which runs thus : - - "Sub : Clarification regarding establishment of DLF Industries Ltd. Working at Rajrappa Project and Giddi Washery of M/s. CCL and Madhuband Washery of M/s. BCCL. Sir, Please refer to your letter No. RLC -PA/98 dated 5/10th May, 1998 on the subject. The matter has been considered carefully in this Directorate. The provisions of Section 2(j)(IX) of the Mines Act, 1952 regarding Power Station can not be considered in isolation. It has to be considered along with the definition of 'Mine' in Section 2(j) of Mines Act, 1952 which is as follows : - - "'Mine' Means any excavation where any operation for the purpose of searching for or obtaining mineral has been or is being carried on." Thus exclusively power stations can be considered as part of the mine and not the 'Mine' by itself. In view of the above establishment of DLF industries Ltd. referred to in Your letter can not be considered as 'Mine' and are not covered under the Mines Act. 1952." It is this letter (dated 13th July, 1999), which was challenged by the respondent before the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 1370 of 2000. The learned Single Judge by quashing this letter held that the DGMS was not correct in law in holding that the Respondent's Power Station could not be considered as "mine." It is against the aforesaid Judgment that the Appellants have filed the present appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. In course of the judgment the learned Single Judge made a reference to Section 82 of the Mines Act, 1952 by observing that if the Respondents in the writ application disputed the installation or construction of the Power Station as not being covered by the expression "mine" they are at liberty to get this issue decided by the Central Government in terms of Section 82 of the Mines Act, 1952.;