Civil Appeal No 548 of 1958
Appeal by Special Leave from the judgment and order dated March 27 1957 of the Patna High Court in Misc
Judicial Case No 315 of 1956
B Sen P W Sahasrabudhe and A C Ratnaparkhi
for the Appellant K L Hathi and R H Dhebar for Respondent No 1
N C Chatterjee and section N Mukerji for Respondent No 2 1961
October 9
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKAR J
on September 25 1947 the appellant was appointed by respondent No 2 the Tata Iron and Steel Co Ltd hereafter called the Company as the Chief Labour officer of its collieries of which it appears to have a few and he worked 33 under the Company till the latter terminated his services by a notice dated December 51955
On such discharge the appellant  claiming to be a Welfare Officer of a mine within r742 of the Mines Rules 1955 which rule we shall later ser out filed an appeal before respondent No1 the Chief Inspector of Mines in India under that rule questioning the validity of his discharged by the Company
The Chief Inspector held that the appellant was not a Welfare Officer within that rule and refused to entertain his appeal
The appellant then moved the High Court at Patna under article 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate writ directing the chief inspector to decide the appeal
The High Court dismissed the appellant s petition agreeing substantially with the view taken by the Chief Inspector
The appellant has now appealed to this Court against the judgment of the High Court
The Mines Rules 1955 were framed under the  and came into force on July 2 1956
We are principally concerned with the proviso for
742 but this has to be read with r72
The relevant portions of these rules are set out below
Rule 72
1 In every mine wherein 500 or more persons are ordinarily employed there shall be appointed at least one Welfare Officer Provided that if the number of persons ordinarily employed exceeds 2000 there shall be appointed additional Welfare Officer on a scale of one for every 2000 persons or fraction thereof 2 No person shall as a Welfare Officer of a mine unless he possesses Here certain qualifications are specified Provided that in case of a person already in service as a Welfare Officer in a mine the 34 above qualifications may with the approval of the Chief Inspector be relaxed
3     4 A written notice of ever y such appointment  and of the date thereof shall be sent by the owner agent or manager t o the Chief Inspector within 7 days from the date of such appointment  
Rule 73
Duties of Welfare officers           Here certain duties are prescribed Rule 74
1       2 The condition of service of a Welfare Officer shall be the same as of other members of the staff of corresponding status in the mine Provided that in the case of discharge or dismissal the Welfare Officer shall have a right of appeal to the Chief Inspector whose decision thereon shall be final and binding upon the owner agent or manager of the mine as the case may be
The Chief Inspector mentioned in these Rules is the Chief Inspector of Mines in India
If the appellant was not a Welfare officer within the proviso to r 742 as the company contends then of course no appeal by him lay under it
He would then clearly not be entitled to the writ he asked
The question therefore is whether the appellant was a Welfare Officer within the rule and is really one of construction of it
We desire now to point out certain facts as to which there is no controversy
First both the Act and the Rules came into force long after the appellant had been appointed by the Company
Secondly no relaxation of qualifications had been sought from or granted by the Chief Inspector with respect to 35 The appellant under the proviso to sub r
2 of r 72 after the Rules came in to force
Thirdly no notice as contemplated in r 724 had been given concerning the appellant
It appears that the Chief Inspector found that the appellant was performing duties akin to those of Welfare officers contemplated by rule 73 and he was qualified to work as a Welfare officer
 We propose to deal with this appeal on the basis of these findings
Dealing with the contention noticed by the Chief Inspector and the High Court that a Welfare Officer under r 742 is one who is appointed after the Rules came into force Mr Sen for the appellant said that a person like the appellant who had the requisite qualifications and was discharging the duties prescribed for a Welfare officer from before the Rules came into force would be a Welfare officer within them
He pointed out that the proviso to sub r
2 of r 72 clearly contemplated the continuance of the service of such a person as a Welfare officer with relaxation where such was necessary and was granted
He also said that sub r
4 of r 72 was inapplicable to Such a person because he had been appointed long ago and because the proviso to r 722 indicated that its application was not intended
We do not think it necessary to pronounce on this question in the present case
In our view the appeal must fail even if Mr Sen s contention is right and that for another reason 
We observe that the Rules do not define the term Welfare officer
But we think it is beyond doubt and indeed the contrary has not been contended that the Welfare officer mentioned in the proviso to r 742 is the same officer as is mentioned in sub r 1 of r 72
Now it is in our view perfectly plain that the Welfare officer contemplated by r 721 is such an officer of one mine
The rule says that there shall be at least one Welfare officer for every mine employing between 500 and 2000 persons and this makes any other view impossible 36 As we understood Mr Sen he also accepted that the Welfare officer contemplated is one appointed in respect of one mine
Now the appellant was on his own case the Welfare Officer of several mines of the Company and not of one of such mines only
Therefore we think that he was not a Welfare officer within r 721 and hence not within the proviso to r 742
But Mr Sen contends that the appellant might be considered as having been severally and independently appointed the Welfare officer of each of the Company s several collieries in his charge
We think that would be an impossible view to take
One appointment cannot be treated as several appointments and it is not in dispute that the appellant had only one appointment for all the Company s collieries
We think that this appeal fails and we dismiss it with costs
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellant was appointed as the Chief Labour officer by the Company in 1947
In December 1955 the company terminated his services The appellant claiming to be a Welfare officer preferred an appeal to the Chief Inspector of Mines under r 742 of the Mines Rules 1955
 Held that the appellant was not a Welfare officer and as such could not prefer an appeal under r 74 2
The Welfare officer mentioned in r 74 2 is the same officer as is mentioned in r 72 1 which rule contemplates a Welfare officer appointed in respect of one mine
But the appellant was an officer of several mines of the Company and not of one of such mines only