STATE OF BIHAR versus S. K. ROY

STATE OF BIHAR versus S. K. ROY

The respondent is not the owner of a coal mine within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Mines Act, 1952, as he owns only a coke plant not engaged in mining operations nor under the same ownership as the adjacent coal mine. Subsidiary works or plants are only part of a coal mine if they appertain to it in ownership...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: State of Bihar; Respondent: S. K. Roy
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
25 April 1966
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Acquittal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Definition of 'coal Mine', Employer Under Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act, Interpretation of Mines Act Provisions
Labour Law Criminal Law Statutory Interpretation Definition of 'coal Mine' Employer Under Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act Interpretation of Mines Act Provisions

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of Bihar

Appellant

S. K. Roy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Acquittal

  1. 1 Whether the owner of a coke plant adjacent to a coal mine is an 'owner of a coal mine' and hence an 'employer' within the meaning of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act, 1948 and the Mines Act, 1952.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent is not the owner of a coal mine within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Mines Act, 1952, as he owns only a coke plant not engaged in mining operations nor under the same ownership as the adjacent coal mine. Subsidiary works or plants are only part of a coal mine if they appertain to it in ownership and operation for the purpose of obtaining coal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • High Court acquittal of respondent affirmed