iminal Appeals Nos 198 and 199 of 1963
Appeals from the judgment and order dated February 4 1963 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeals Nos
779  780 of 1962
section C Patwardhan B R G K Achar for R H Dheber for the appellant
Avadh Behari for respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri J
These are two appeals by certificate granted by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay against its judgment dated February 4 1963 in Criminal Appeals Nos 779 and 780 of 1962
By this judgment the High Court affirmed the order of N4SCI 3 462 acquittal passed against the respondent by the Judicial Magistrate A First Class Vadagaon Mawal
The relevant facts are as follows The Labour Inspector Central Bombay 1 appointed under the XI of 1948 hereinafter called the Act by the Central Government filed two complaints in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate alleging that the respondent had contravened certain provisions of the Minimum Wages Central Rules 1950
It was alleged that the respondent was doing quarrying operation work in quarry survey Nos
231 Kusegaon village near Lonavala and while carrying on this quarrying operation work he failed to observe certain provisions in the Rules
The respondent submitted a written statement admitting the facts but he contended inter alia that the Inspector was not authorised to file the complaint and it was only an inspector appointed by the Maharashtra State who was competent to file a complaint
The Judicial Magistrate treating this as a preliminary objection came to the conclusion that the Inspector was not entitled to file the complaint
According to him the word mine in sub cl
i of section 2b of the Act does not include a stone quarry and therefore the appropriate Government was the State Government and not the Central Government
There upon he acquitted the accused of the offence under section 22A read with section 18 of the Act and for contravening certain rules of the Minimum Wages Central Rules 1950
The State then filed two appeals before the High Court
The High Court also came to the conclusion that the Inspector was not competent to file the complaints but the reasoning of the High Court was different
It was of the opinion that a stone quarry can fall within the category of a mine as defined in the Mines Act of 1952 or the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act of 1957
 But even so according to it the Schedule does not mention either a mine or a stone quarry and item No 8 viz Employment in stone breaking and stone crushing cannot therefore be said to be an employment in respect of a mine whether in its broadest sense so as to include a stone quarry or in narrow sense as given in the Oxford English Dictionary The High Court further held that unless therefore the Parliament amends item No 8 of the Schedule so to include the operation of stone breaking and stone crushing in a stone quarry or in all mines including a stone quarry it is not possible to hold that the appropriate Government would be the Central Government merely on the basis that in its widest connotation the words stone quarry  may fall within the ambit of the word mine 
 Section 2b of the Act defines appropriate government as follows 2b appropriate government means i in relation to any scheduled employment carried on 463 by or under the authority of the Central Government or a railway administration or in relation to a mine oilfield or major port or any corporation established by a Central Act the Central Government and ii in relation to any other scheduled employment the State Government
 Sub clause g defines scheduled employment to mean in em ployment specified in the Schedule or any process or branch of work forming part of such employment
The Schedule is divided into two parts and Part 1 contains entry 8 Employment in stone breaking or stone crushing
Section 22 prescribes the penalties for certain offenses and section 22A provides that any employer who contravenes any
provisions of this Act or of any rule or order made thereunder shall if no other penalty is provided for such contravention by this Act be punishable with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees
 Section 22B deals with the cognizance of offences and provides that no Court shall take cognizance of a complaint against any person for an offence under clause b of section 22 or under section 22A except on a complaint made by or with the sanction of an Inspector
 The first question which arises is whether the quarry which the respondent is alleged to be working and in which the employees are alleged to be carrying on the operation of stone breaking or stone crushing is a mine within section 2b
Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the definition of the word mine in the XXXV of 1952 and the LXVII of 1957
Section 2j of the Mine Act defines mine  and the relevant part of the definition is as under Mine means any excavation where any operation for the purpose of searching for or obtaining minerals has been or is being carried on and includes iv all open cast workings
 The word minerals  is defined to mean all substances which can be obtained from the earth by mining digging drilling dredging hydraulicing quarrying or by any other operation and includes mineral oils which in turn include natural gas and petroleum
he learned counsel says that a quarry is a mine within this definition
In the  the expressions mine  and owner  have the meanings assigned to them in the 
The learned counsel contends that this meaning should be read into the 
464 The learned counsel for the respondents relies on the observations of this Court in Pandit Ram Narain vs The State of Uttar Pradesh1 that it is no sound principle of construction to interpret expressions used in one Act with reference to their use in another Act
The meanings of words and expressions used in an Act must take their colour from the context in which they appear
 The learned counsel further contends relying on a number of English decisions that in its primary signification the word mine  means underground excavations or underground workings
He relies in particular on the speech of Lord Macnaughten in Lord Provost and Magistrates of Glasgow vs Farie 2 
The House of Lords was concerned in that case with the interpretation of section 18 of the Waterworks Clauses Act 1847 which was in the following terms The undertakers shall not be entitled to any mines of coal ironstone state or other minerals under any land purchased by them except only such parts thereof as shall be necessary to be dug or carried away or used in the construction of the water works unless the same shall have been expressly purchased and all such mines excepting as aforesaid shall be deemed to be excepted out of the conveyance of such lands unless they shall have been expressly named therein and conveyed thereby
 The appellants in that case had purchased from the respondent a parcel of land for the purpose of erecting waterworks and the conveyance contained a reservation of the whole coal and other minerals in the land in terms of the Waterworks Clauses Act 1847
 Under the land was a seam of valuable brick clay
The respondent worked this clay in the adjoining land and having reached the appellants  boundary claimed the right to work out the clay under the land purchased by the appellants
The House of Lords held that common clay forming the surface or subsoil of land was not included in the reservation in the Act and that the appellants were entitled to an interdict restraining the respondent from working the clay under the land purchased by them
It is true Lord Macnaughten first construed the word mine  in this enactment to mean under ground excavations or underground workings and then proceeded to construe the section
But Lord Watson was of the opinion that the word mine  did not necessarily mean underground excavations
He said that it does not occur to me that an open excavation of auriferous quartz would be generally described as a gold quarry I think most people would call it a cold mine
 Later he observed that the word quarry  is no doubt inapplicable to underground excavations but the word milling  may without impropriety be used to denote some quarries
Dr Johnson defines a quarry to be a stone mine
He arrived at the conclusion that the word mine  must be taken to signify all 1  at 673
2 13 AC 657
465 excavations by which the excepted minerals may be legitimately worked and got
 In our opinion as stated in Halsbury s Laws of England Third Edition volume 26 p 317 the word mine  is not a definite term but is one susceptible of limitation or expansion according to the intention with which it is used
In section 2b of the Act we have to see the context in which the word has been used
What the legislature is purporting to do is to demarcate the jurisdiction of the State Governments and the Central Government in respect of minimum wages to be paid to persons employed in the employments enumerated in the Schedule
Entry 35 in List 1 of Schedule VII of the Government of India Act 1935 was regulation of tabour and safety in mines and oilfields
 Entry 36 read regulation of mines and oilfields and mineral development to the extent to which such regulation and development under Dominion control is declared by Dominion law to be expedient in the public interest
 It is not seriously contested that in Entries 35 and 36 the word mines  would include quarries
The Mines Act 1923 IV of 1923 which was the existing law when the Government of India Act came into force made provisions regarding health and safety in mines and regulated hours and limitations of employment in the mines
The word mine  had been defined to mean any excava tion where any operation for the purpose of searching for or obtaining minerals has been or is being carried on and includes all works machinery tramways and sidings whether above or below ground in or adjacent to or belonging to a mine provided that it shall not include any part of such premises on which a manufacturing process is being carried on unless such process is a process for coke making or the dressing of minerals
Therefore if we examine the definition of appropriate government  in section 2b in the context and in the background of the Government of India Act and the existing law it seems to us that the Central Legislature must have intended to include quarries in the word mine  otherwise it would be rather incongruous that some matters such as health and saftey hours and employment in quarries should be regulated by the Central Government and minimum wages by the State Governments
Further
there is no indication whatsoever in the Act that the word mine  has the narrower meaning suggested by the learned counsel for the respondent
If the word mine  is held to include a quarry the next question that arises is whether stone breaking or stone crushing in a quarry is within the Schedule
While interpreting Entry 8 in the Schedule this Court observed in Madliva Pradesh Mineral Industry Association vs The Regional Labour Commissioner Jabalpur1 as follows When we speak of stone breaking or stone crushing normally we refer to stone in the sense of piece of rock 1 1960 3SCR 476
466 and that would exclude maganese
Employment in stone breaking or stone crushing in this sense would refer to quarry operations
 This Court thus read Entry 8 to refer to quarry operations and we hold that stone breaking or stone crushing in a quarry is within the Schedule
Thus reading item 8 of the Schedule and section 2b of the Act together it seems to us that the definition demarcates the jurisdiction of the Central Government and the State Governments in this way If the employment in stone breaking or stone crushing is in a quarry then it is within the jurisdiction of the Central Government if the employment in stone breaking or stone crushing is not in a quarry it is the State Government that will have jurisdiction
We are unable to appreciate the observations of the High Court that the operation of stone breaking and stone crushing in a stone quarry does not fall within item 8 of the Schedule and that it is necessary that Parliament should amend item 8 of the Schedule
In the result we hold that the Inspector was competent to file the complaints and the Magistrate and the High Court should not have acquitted the respondent on the ground of his being incompetent to file the complaints
The appeals are allowed and the judgment of the High Court and the order of the Magistrate are reversed and the cases remitted to the Magistrate to proceed with the complaints in accordance with law
Appeals allowed


Summary:
The Labour Inspector appointed under the filed two complaints before the Judicial Magistrate alleging that the respondent doing quarrying operation work had contravened certain provisions of the Minimum Wages Control Rules 1950
The respondent inter alia submitted that the Inspector was not authorised to file the complaint and only an Inspector appointed by the State Government was competent to file the complaint
The Judicial Magistrate held that the word mine in sub cl
1 of section 2b of the Act does not include a stone quarry and therefore the appropriate government was the State Government and not the Central Government
The appellants  appeals were dismissed by the High Court
In appeal to this Court
HELD An examination of the definition of appropriate Government in section 2b of the in the context and background of Government of India Act 1935 and the Mines Act 1923 shows that the word mine in section 2bi includes quarries
Also stone breaking or stone crushing in a quarry is within Entry 8 in Part 1 of the Schedule of the Act
Since the employment in stone breaking or stone crushing is in a quarry it is within the jurisdiction of the Central Government because it is a scheduled employment in a mine Within the meaning of section 2bi
Therefore the Inspector appointed under the Act was competent to file the complaints
465F 466A B D Madhya Pradesh Mineral Industry Association vs The Regional Labour Commissioner Jabalpur 19601 3 SCR 476 applied