Heading types


THE COAL MINES PROVIDENT FUND AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT 1948

Comments

Scope.-Section 9 of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Scheme Act, 1948, prohibits the courts from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under the Scheme except on a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made by an Inspector with the previous sanction of such authority as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government.

It is well established that company is a legal entity different from its shareholders. The company is a separate legal entity. It can very well be prosecuted if it is alleged that it is guilty of acts which make it punishable under the provisions of a penal statute. The provisions contained in para. 12 of the Scheme create liabilities only against the "employer".

The directors are neither the immediate proprietors nor lessees nor occupiers of the mine or any part thereof. The lessee or the occupier in the present case would be the company itself. Therefore, the directors cannot be validly prosecuted under the sanction which has been given to prosecute the company itself by stating that the owners thereof may be prosecuted. In a case where the punishment for the offence is not only imprisonment but imprisonment or fine, as is the position in this case, there is no doubt that the company could be prosecuted and fined.

As punishment prescribed for the offence was an alternative punishment of imprisonment or fine, it is clear that the company could be before the Court in such a case would be proper punishment and the alternative provision does not defeat the jurisdiction of the Court to try the company for the commission of any offence. Thus, the sanction which was accorded to prosecute the company cannot be availed of to prosecute the directors.2

If the petitioner comes within the definition of "employer", it is up to them to safeguard their own interests in the best way possible but they cannot escape liability under the Act or the Scheme framed thereunder.3

Prosecution for a graver offence.-There is no bar to the maintainability of the criminal proceedings merely on the ground that it is under the Indian Penal Code which is a general Act and not under Sec. 9 of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act. 1948 which is a special Act. requiring a sanction under Sec. 9(2) thereof, inasmuch as the offence proceeded with under the general Act is a graver offence.4

A person appointed under Sec. 9 and paid from the fund under Sec. 5 clearly comes within the provisions of rule 42 of Coal Mines. Labour Fund Rules and he shall not be deemed to be a Government servant. Section 9(2) also by necessary implication supports the position that a person appointed under Sec. 9 would not otherwise be a Government servant.5

1O. Inspectors.-(1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint such persons as it thinks fit to be Inspectors for the purposes of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme 6for the Insurance Scheme] or the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme and may define their jurisdiction.

(2) An Inspector may, in respect of any coal mine within his jurisdiction,- 7l(al require an employer or any contractor from whom any amount is

  • 1. Subs, by Act 45 of 1965 (w.e.f. IstApril. 1966).
  • 2. Stale ofMadhya Pradcsh u. D. V. Parkhari. A.I.R. 1964 M.P. 222 at pp. 223, 224.
  • 3. D. N. Ohosh v. Additional Sessions .Judge, A.I.R. 1959 Cal. 208 at p. 213.
  • 4. L.N. K. Jhajharia u. Chandra. 1974 Lab. I.e. 685 at pp. 686, 689 (Cal.).
  • 5. S. S. Garga v. Coal Controller. 1974 Lab. I.C. 45 at p. 48 (CaJ.)
  • 6. Ins. by Act 99 of 1976. Sec. 12 (w.e.f. 1st August. 1976).
  • 7. Subs, by Act 45 of 1965 (w.e.f. I si April. 1966).