Sri Laxmi Ganapathi Constructions v. The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY wRtT PET|TION NO. 24521 0F 2020 Between:

Sri Laxmi Ganapathi Constructions, Rep. by its Owner, Smt. M.Kaveri Rao, W/o. Ravi, 35 Years, H.No. 1'1-103, Subhash Colony, Bhupalpally, Bhoopalpally, Jayashankar Bhupalapally District.

...PETITIONER AND

1. The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Singareni Bhavan, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.

2. The General Manager, (Contract lttlanagement), Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Kothagudem Area, Kothagudem, Khammam District - 507 101

3. The Chief General lVanager, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bhupalapalli Area, Jayashankar Bhupalapalli District.

4. The Regional Commissioner, Coal [t{ines Provident Fund Organization, I\,4illennium Complex, l.B.Colony, Street Opp. to Bus Stand, Godavarikhani - 505 209 Karimnagar District ...REspoNDENTs Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of [\/andamus declaring the action of the Respondents in insisting for complying with Clause 37(d) of the work order No. 7600045308, dt. 10.10.2020 with regard to enrolment of the workmen and staff of the petitioner as members of the Coal lt/line Provident Fund and deduction of Coal mines provident fund from the amounts payable to the Petitioner as per the work order No. 7600045308, dt. 10.10.

2020 as arbitrary and illegal and further declare that the provisions of the Coal [\/ine Provident Fund and Miscellaneous provisions Act 1948 are not applicable to transport contract. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents not to deduct or effect recovery of the amounts towards Coal Mine Provident Fund pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. SRIKANTH Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: SRI J. SREENIVASA RAO, S.C. FOR SINGARENI COLLIERIES Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI K.L.N. RAGHAVENDER REDDY, S.C.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.2452L OF 2O2O ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed lor the follou,ing relief: ". . . lo issue a unt, order or direction more particularlg one in the nature of Wnt of Mandamus, declaing the action of the respondents in insisting for complging uith Clause 37(d) of the Work Order No.7600045308 dated 10.10.2020 wtth regard to enrolment of the utorkmen and staff of the petittoner as members of lhe Coal Mine Prouident lt'und and deduction of Coal Mine s Prouident ltund from the omounts payable to the petitioner as per the Work Order No.7600045308, dated 10.10.2020, as arbitrary and iLLegal and furlher declare that the prouistotts of the Coal Mine Proutdent I;urrcl and Miscellaneous ,Prouislons Act 1948, are not appltcable Lo transport contract and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstences of the case."

When the matter is taken up, it- is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue in the present Wril Petition is squarely covered by the common order, dated 30.03.2011, passed by this Court in W.P.No.1ltO7 of 2OO9 and batch.

Sri J. Srinivasa Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. I to 3 and Sri K.L.N. Raghavender Reddy, learncd Standing Counsel for the Coal Mines Provident Fund Orga.nization, appearing for respondent No.4 do not dispute the aforcsaid submission.

The operative portion of the aforesaid order reads as under:

"Ilence, the Wnt Petitions are disposed of' directing that, (a) the Regional Commissioner or anA Officgr oitnoarZa bg him sholt first issue a notice to the Detitioners -to decide whether the octtuttg 'uni"rtok"n by the petitioners comes tuithin the i.iiiiit-" of 6oal hrine. It shall be open to the t'tititioners t o submit expl an al ion :

in,n" "u"n, of rhe atiiuiry being declctred as .t.he 'one itt coal mine, the "^ptog"""

shall be enrolled os members, subject to their fulfilment,-oJ t.ne or"".riA.a cortditions, the respondents shall a-ssign iri;;.;"i numbers and issue cards; and the (b) tleductions shatt be made with reference -to the """i"", numbers a.nd cards so issued' peiodicalLy;

lii r""n ri^., no dedttctions shatt be made ' but if it i" iia thal. the pelitioners are lioble' at a lctter (c) poinl oJ fi.me, they shull be uru7e'r obligation to paA the arrears also;

tln'" iio""t cleducted from the petitioners' s-o. J.ar ' '"ioi U" kept in FDI?s ancl the rnanner in tuhich it (d) s,hatt be utilizeci shall be decided, depending upon inii"""t""rr. oJ' the exercise tutclertaken aboue; arul' "r,i""""1i",-rti of' the Coal Mines l\-ouklent Fund 'siatt .nsurJ thnt it cloes not deduct anA amount' without reference to a patlicular emplogee' uho is (e) admitted io the Prouident Fund'"

In view of the above, following the above said common order and for the reasons recorded therein' this Writ Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof'

Miscellaneous applications' if any' pending shall stand closed. There shal1 be no order as to costs'

SD/. K,AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGIS AR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The Chairman and tVlanaging Director' .Singareni Collieries Company Ltd ' si;"#;i iih;;an, KhairataSadl Hvderabad 1.

The- General l\/anager, t"J,i#r.i'rtar"Jgement), -S:ngareni collieries Company 2.

+ffi1it51,::g[Hi6'.":#'gl,'J,',:T,[[i*[tt'*lULv5lt7ol0Jr,,p,rupurri J.

m,l"*g*ta*,{+f:'lf*ils},{,v;r:"sl"."itrl'"'*x#'ksh?i:'1!"& 4.

a'.% [t USfl il o.?l'nlL'n Ad vo cate Io-P u91 5.

6.

7.

I Effi SS\1gi[:J"ni["&'f ,"Ttr-1gr'S:,',t9a:':',.%*?'ffi l"L??YSJio"ntruno Oroanization (OPUC) f w-o CO CoPies.

Along with a Copy of the Common Order dated 30 03 2011 in W P No'11107 of 2009 and batch.

MP

HIGH COURT DATED:31 11212020

ORDER

lHE S 14 WP.No.24521 o12020 05 IAN 2021 o * * ..t DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS s:tJ l crP'd )\-+ \.,, ,1 \-/ \ 200tand batch.

lh THE HON'9LE fvi? Jr.tST\CE L. NARASTMHA REDD| COMMON JUDGMENT:

ln this batch of wrjt petitions, common question arises for consicJeration. Hence, they are disposed of, through a common judgment.

The petitioner in W.P.No.t 1107 of 2OO9 is M/s Mallikarjuna Transport, and in all othdr writ petitions, it is Sri Srinivasa Transport. The petitioners were assigned the contract by M/s Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., (for short'the Company') lor transporting of coal from an lncline to the dumping units, for different periods. ln every contract, the particulars as to lead, Kilometers, approximate quantity of coal to be transported, the rate per tonne for each of the destinations, and, ultimately, the total value of the contract are furnished. lt is also stipulated that, it shall be the obligation of the contractor to engage machines or trucks, workmen, and to make contributions under diflerent enactments.

The Company made deductions of different kinds lrom the bills payable to the petitioners. One such deduction is the contribution to Coal lvlines Provident Fund (lor short ,Clr/pF'), at 1O.5/6% ol the bill. The petitioners challenge this deduction, on the ground that most of the workers engaged by them are on daily or weekly wage basis; none of them are members ol the ClVpF, and that there is no basis for it. lt is

staled that the necessity to make deduction of contribution would arise' only when an employee of the petitioners has become a member of the CMPF, and contributibn must be crediled to the accaunt of the employee. The petitioners submit that there is absolutely no basis for making deduction for such huge amounts, from time to time. Ea The Company filed a cou nter-affidavit. lt is stated that the deduction is being made, as required under Coal lirlines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'), and the petitioners cannol escape from the statutory liability. lt is also stated that a Scheme was framed in the year 1948, and the details thereof are mentioned. lt is stated that the Commissioner of Coal It4ines Provident Fund, which is a party in the writ petitions, has to decide such issues, and that the petitioners cannot avoid their obligation to make contribulion.

s Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, Iearned counsel lor the petitioners advanced arguments on behalf of the petitioners. He submits that the activity undertaken by the petitioners cannot be treated as the one, in the 'coal mine', much less, the workers engaged by them are covered by the definition under Section 2(b) of the Act. Learned counsel submits that, in exercise of power unCer thc Act, a scheme was framed by the Central Government, providing for constitution of a fund, lor the benefit of the coal mines employees, and a Trust, to operate it. After referring to the relevant provisions, learned counsel submits that, it is only when an employee becomes the member of the CMpF, that the obligation would arise, either for the principal employer, i.e. the Company, or the Conkactor, to make the contribution. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Coun to conlend that a transpon contractor cannot be treated as an employer, much less

/ his activity, as that oF a coal mine.

Sri Deepak Baltachargee, learned Standing Counsel for the Coal N,4ines Provident Fund and Sri Nandigama Krishna Bao, learned Standing Counsel for the Singareni Collieries, on the other hand, submit that the work entrusted to the petitioners is very much an activity pertaining to coal mine, and that the employees engaged in i1 are covered by the provisions of the Act. According to them, once the deduction of the contribution is effected, it would be extended to the persons for whose ber:3fit it was deducted, at a later point of time. The Act was brought into existence for the benelit of the workers in the coal mines, ln exercise of power under the Act, the Central Government framed the Coal Mines provident Fund, Family pension, and a Trust, to operate the sarne.

The salient leatures of the Scheme are that, the employees, who are engaged in the coal mines, are to be t made members ol the CIVPF, and are issued cards, apart lrom being assigned numbers. That in turn create obligation on the part ol the employee and the employer to make contribution to the fund. The benefits arising out o{ the tund in favour ol the members are also enlisted. The allotment of accounl numbers, issuance of cards, the renewal thereof, etc., are provided for under Clauses 39, 40, 41 and 42 of the Scheme. The membership in the fund is coextensive with the employment in the coal mines.

It is not in dispute that the petitioners are assigned the work of transporting coal, which is already extracted from the mines. A serious doubt arises, as to whether the activity assigned to them can be treated as the one, in 'coal mine'. The definition of 'coal mine', under Section 2 (b) takes in its fold, vast number of activities enlisted '.N

IT from Clause (i) to (xiii). ln these writ petitions' it is not necessary t0 make a final pronouncement, as to whether the transport activity o{ coal lalls within that delinition.

Even where an activity is referable to a 'coal mine'., the It necessity lor an employer to make contribution to the CMPF arises' only when an employee is made a member of the fund. The parameters for an employee \o become a member of the fund are stipulated under the Scheme. Nowhere in the correspondence between the parties, it is evident that any effort was made by the respondents, lo ascertain these facts. The contributions are being deducted, just on the basis of the nu;nber of workers, that are supposed to be engaged.

It is only when such worker is made the member of the fund, that a meaningful contribution can be made. lf deduction is made, without a the worker being the member of the fund, it amounts to an illegal collection, if not undue enrichment on the part of the respondents. The Act does not contemplate the deductions being made, even where, neither account numbers are assigned, nor membership cards are issued to the employees. As and when a responsible officer undefiakes such an exercise, the question, as to whether the activity being undertaken amounts to that of a coal mine; can also be examined, lt would be premature for this Court to make any pronouncemenl on such questions. Hence, the writ petitions are disposed of, directing that, a) the Regional Commissioner or any Ofiicer authorized by him shall first issue a notice to the petitioners to decide whether the activity undertaken by the

t8 petitioners comes within the defjnltion of Coal Min6_ It shalt be open to the petifioners to submit explan atio n;

in the event of the activity being declared as the one in coal mine, the employees shall be enrolled as b) members, subject to their fulfillment of the prescribed conditions, the respondents shall assign account numbers and issue cards; and the deductions shall be made with reference to the account numbers and cards so issued, periodically;

till such time, no deductions shall be made, but if it is c) held that the petitioners are Ijable, at a later point of time, they shall be under obligation to pay the arrears also;

d) the amount deducted from the petitloners, so far, shall be kept in FDRs and the manner jn which it shall be utilized shall be decided, depending upon the I outcome of the exercise undeftaken above;and the authority of the coal mines provident fund shall e) ensure that it does not deduct any amounl, withoul reference to a particular employee, who is admitted to the provident fund.

There shall be no order as to costs L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

Dr.30.03-2011.

NeE L.R capy to be matked (B/a) [,lu}r---