BAGALKOT UDYOG LIMITED BAGALKOT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the petitioner is a factory engaged in the manufacture of cement. It is located at bagalkot, bijapur district. Limestone is one of the raw materials required for the manufacture of cement. To get the limestone, the petitioner factory has taken certain mining areas controlled by the respondents. In the mining area, a plant is put up for crushing the limestone which is thereafter sent to the factory for the manufacture of cement.

(2.) the second respondent issued a notice as per Annexure-B to the petitioner bringing to its notice that the plant installed by the petitioner was covered by the mines act. In response to the notice, the petitioner sent a letter as per Annexure-B by way of reply stating that the crushing plant was a factory covered by the factories Act, 1948 (the act for short) and that therefore it might be exempted from the application of the mines act. The request was rejected by the letter of respondent 2 written as per Annexure-C . The petitioner again wrote a letter as per Annexure-D relying upon the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in M/s. Birla jute Manufacturing Co., ltd. V The State of Madhya Pradesh and others, AIR 1982 m.p. 225 and requested for exemption. That was also rejected by the letter, Annexure-E . Ultimately, the petitioner wrote one more letter on the same lines reiterating that the crushing plant could not be covered by the mines Act, that the mines manager had no control over the factory and instead it was the chief engineer under the factories act who was empowered to control the factory and that therefore the factory might be exempted from the coverage of the mines act. Annexure-G is the letter written by respondent 3 once again rejecting the request of the petitioner. Hence this petition.

(3.) the respondents have filed a detailed statement of objections denying the averments of the petitioner and contending, inter alia, that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has not specifically sought exemption under the mines Act, that the nature of work of the labourers in the mines being most hazardous to health, their interests cannot be properly safeguarded under the act as its Provisions are not as much stringent as that of the mines Act, that admittedly mines are controlled and regulated by the mines act only, that the limestone being obtained from the earth by mining in the mine is a mineral coming within the definition of 'minerals' as defined in Section 2(jj) and that therefore the plant of the petitioner installed in the mining area for the purpose of crushing limestone is covered by the mines act and not by the factories act as contended by the petitioner. It is further stated, if the act is made applicable to the mining areas, it would lead to confusion and become practically difficult for the enforcing authorities to apply which of the acts in times of emergency and by whom, in view of the two separate enforcing authorities under the two acts operating in the same area. As staled earlier, the contention of the respon- dents is that if at all the petitioner wants exemption from the application of the mines Act, he can do so thereunder itself which contained specific Provisions for that purpose.