Telangana High CourtM/S.Sd.Javeed Pasha vs The Singareni Collieries Company ... on 24 August, 2022THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN\n                      AND\n THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY\n\n\nW.P.Nos.13061, 13062, 13078, 13080, 13170, 13795,\n13803, 13806, 13807, 13810, 13816, 13817, 13818,\n13831, 13866, 13899, 13908, 13909, 13911, 13913,\n13914, 13915, 13919, 13938, 13950, 13954, 13964,\n13965, 13968, 13969, 13987, 13988, 14007, 14011,\n14017, 14019, 14079, 14103, 14104, 14105, 14107,\n14109, 14114, 14118, 14119, 14121, 14122, 14124,\n14125, 14126, 14127, 14128, 14133, 14135, 14192,\n14193, 14205, 14213, 14214, 14220, 14222, 14224,\n14225, 14226, 14227, 14229, 14251, 14252, 14257,\n14274, 14280, 14421, 14446, 14452, 14455, 14457,\n14458, 14459, 14464, 23263, 23279, 24823, 24831,\n24884, 24931, 29514, 29817, 30821, 30834, 30836,\n30878, 30905, 30918, 30927, 30931, 30939, 31194,\n31316, 31318, 31322, 31345, 31396, 31415, 31416,\n31471, 31489, 31507, 31509, 31526, 31570, 31611,\n31648, 31663, 31700, 31707, 31726, 31728, 31731,\n31779, 31780, 31858, 31916, 31982, 31985, 31990,\n32012, 32021, 32243, 32429, 32440, 32443, 32493,\n32542, 33197, 33225, 33651, 33660, 33666, 33667,\n33672, 33681, 33878, 33879, 33885, 33890, 33943,\n34102, 34488, 34496, 34589, 34606, 34608, 34646,\n                          2\n\n\n\n\n34658, 34666, 34669, 34714, 34760, 34979, 35347,\n35348, 35606, 35678, 35684, 36080, 36083, 36118,\n36126, 36209, 36248, 36603, 36623, 36690, 36963,\n              37415, 37533 of 2021;\n204, 657, 708, 716, 736, 779, 795, 989, 1072, 1088,\n 2080, 2099, 2102, 2117, 2121, 2124, 2125, 2126,\n 2128, 2129, 2132, 2137, 2145, 2151, 2157, 2159,\n 2160, 2165, 2166, 2168, 2169, 2173, 2177, 2204,\n 2217, 2225, 2227, 2229, 2238, 2260, 2275, 2348,\n 2352, 2354, 2355, 2387, 2396, 2519, 2556, 2560,\n 2572, 2578, 2602, 2612, 2636, 2637, 2638, 2648,\n 2651, 2653, 2707, 2718, 2724, 2726, 2793, 2851,\n 2878, 2932, 2955, 3145, 3177, 3264, 3439, 3458,\n 3459, 3493, 3707, 3708, 3711, 3728, 3736, 3754,\n 3796, 3806, 4093, 4643, 4830, 5500, 5513, 5563,\n 5572, 5588, 6114, 6122, 6124, 6149, 6206, 7444,\n 7463, 7674, 8412, 8417, 8420, 8435, 8446, 8457,\n 8515, 8569, 8579, 8620, 8628, 8642, 8646, 8674,\n 8696, 8723, 8747, 8755, 8776, 8782, 8833, 8860,\n 8866, 9274, 9284, 9490, 9491, 9493, 9494, 9497,\n 9498, 9500, 9501, 9503, 9505, 9508, 9515, 9516,\n 9517, 9521, 9531, 9533, 9548, 9552, 9555, 9558,\n 9567, 9584, 9588, 9603, 9604, 9607, 9637, 9639,\n 9649, 9650, 9660, 9690, 9704, 9712, 9720, 9747,\n 9793, 9794, 9816, 9825, 9848, 9852, 9881, 9910,\n9913, 9949, 9974, 9983, 9990, 9996, 9999, 10001,\n10008, 10043, 10046, 10051, 10059, 10079, 10084,\n                                       3\n\n\n\n\n  10113, 10120, 10199, 10265, 10293, 10299, 10306,\n  10347, 10413, 10860, 10955, 10978, 10982, 10989,\n  10996, 12612, 12747, 12751, 12753, 12771, 12870,\n  13023, 13673, 15858, 15918, 15957, 15966, 16821,\n  17378, 18092, 18467, 18502, 18571, 18572, 18585,\n  18598, 18634, 18647, 18651, 18672, 18717, 18736,\n  18752, 18839, 19197, 19203, 19204, 19209, 19212,\n  19231, 19276, 19335, 19429, 19447, 19473, 19478,\n  19609, 20197, 20200, 20202, 20203, 20209, 20737,\n  20754, 20767, 20783, 20808, 20809, 20813, 20821,\n  20830, 20942, 20961, 20965, 21588, 24358, 24362,\n  24420, 24656, 24663, 24673, 24689, 24704, 24719,\n  24720, 24734, 24741, 24747, 24757, 24774, 24783,\n  24785, 24787, 24788, 24800, 24816, 25002, 25007,\n  25021, 25195, 25210, 25214, 25269, 25383, 25389,\n  25501, 25529, 25636, 25707, 25724, 25758, 25867,\n  25879, 25909, 25910, 25924, 25944, 25956, 26060,\n  26061, 26078, 26107, 26109, 26147, 26158, 26195,\n  26544, 26726, 26734, 26748, 26843, 26987, 27013,\n  27038, 27039, 27050, 27537, 27543, 27765, 27804\n                         and 28962 OF 2022\n\nCOMMON ORDER:(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)\n\n\n       This order will dispose of the above noted writ\n\npetitions.42.   We have heard Mr. D.V.Chalapathi Rao, learned\n\ncounsel for the petitioners; Mr. T.Surya Karan Reddy,\n\nlearned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for\n\nthe Coal Mines Provident Fund; and Mr. B.Arjun, learned\n\ncounsel     appearing       for    Singareni     Collieries     Company\n\nLimited.3.   All the writ petitions have been listed today as it was\n\nmentioned that the issue raised in the writ petitions has\n\nbeen answered by a Division Bench of this Court in a batch\n\nof writ petitions, being W.P.No.33111 of 2013 and batch,\n\ndecided on 26.07.2022.4.   For a proper appreciation, we may advert to the relief\n\nsought for by the petitioner in W.P.No.13061 of 2021,\n\nwhich is the first case of the batch.               The prayer made\n\ntherein is as under:"For the reasons stated in the accompanying\n     affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be\n     pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction,\n     more    particularly    one    in   the   nature   of   writ   of\n     mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents\n     No.1 to 3 in insisting me to pay the Coal Mines\n     Provident Fund at the rate of 12% & 7% towards5contribution of the contractor for the persons i.e., driver\n     and others engaged by me in respect of providing one\n     2WD JEEP (Non A/c) hired by me to the respondents\n     company in pursuance of the Order No.7500041948\n     dated 10.08.2019 and the steps being taken up by the\n     respondents company for deduction of Coal Mines\n     Provident Fund towards contractor's contribution from\n     the amounts payable to me in accordance with the\n     above mentioned work order though there is no\n     condition in the service order with regard to payment of\n     any Coal Mines Provident Fund by me and though the\n     provisions of theCoal Mines Provident Fund and\n     Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948, are not applicable\n     to my case as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and\n     contrary   to   theCoal   Mines   Provident   Fund   and\n     Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948and AP (Telangana)\n     Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme and pass such\n     further or other orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem\n     fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."5.   From the above it is evident that the writ petitioner,\n\nwho is a contractor of Singareni Collieries Company\n\nLimited, is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in\n\nmaking    certain     deductions       as    contribution     of   the\n\ncontractor for the persons engaged by him, such as drivers,\n\nfor the purpose of coal mines provident fund.                It is the\n\ncontention of the petitioner - contractor, that provisions of6theCoal    Mines     Provident   Fund   and    Miscellaneous\n\nProvisions Act, 1948(briefly, "the Act" hereinafter), are not\n\napplicable to a contractor, like the petitioner.      Therefore,\n\nsuch deduction is illegal.6.    We may mention that the present bunch of writ\n\npetitions were listed on 17.08.2022 under the caption\n\n"covered     matters"    on   mentioning     being   made      by\n\nMr. K.Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents\n\non 03.08.2022.7.    It was pointed out that the issue raised in this batch\n\nof writ petitions has been answered by a Division Bench of\n\nthis Court vide the judgment and order dated 26.07.2022\n\npassed in W.P.No.33111 of 2013 and batch.8.    Learned counsel for the petitioners however submits\n\nthat because of inadequate assistance rendered to the\n\nCourt   by     learned    counsel    for   the   petitioners   in\n\nW.P.No.33111 of 2013 and batch, the judgment rendered\n\nby this Court on 26.07.2022 may not be the correct law.\n\nHe makes a distinction between employees under a7contractor over whom the management has overall control\n\nand employees under those contractors over whom the\n\nmanagement has no control.          In the case of the present\n\nbatch of writ petitions, management of Singareni Collieries\n\nCompany Limited has no control over the employees of the\n\npetitioners. Therefore, provisions of the Act would have no\n\napplication.9.     By filing written submissions, learned counsel for the\n\npetitioners has placed on record the following decisions:i)     Karachi Bakery v. Regional Provident Fund\n\n              Commissioner1;ii)    Standard Chartered Bank v. Union of India2;andiii)   Regional    Director,   E.S.I.   Corporation   v.P.R.Narahari Rao3.10.    Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits\n\nthat counter        affidavits have not been filed by the\n\nrespondents in majority of the cases. No memo has also11990 Law Suit (AP) 6122002 (2) LLJ 75431986 Ker L.J. 9948been filed to say that the counter affidavits filed would be\n\nthe stand of the respondents in the entire batch. He has\n\nalso found fault with the order dated 30.07.2020 passed by\n\nthe Provident Fund Inspector, Coal Mines Provident Fund,\n\nKothagudem, as according to him, under the Act it is only\n\nthe Commissioner who can pass such an order and not the\n\nInspector.11.   Mr.    T.Surya    Karan         Reddy,   learned      Additional\n\nSolicitor General of India submits that contentions urged\n\non behalf of the petitioners are only academic now.                 The\n\ncore issue as to whether employees engaged by a transport\n\ncontractor engaged by the Singareni Collieries Company\n\nLimited would fall within the definition of the term\n\n"employee" underSection 2(d)of the Act has been\n\nanswered     by   a    Division       Bench    of    this   Court    in\n\nW.P.No.33111 of 2013 and batch. It is this decision which\n\nwill now govern the cases before us.                Filing of counter\n\naffidavits in all the cases therefore is not necessary.\n\nInsofar order passed by the Provident Fund Inspector is\n\nconcerned, he submits that Provident Fund Inspector had9passed the order on directions of this Court dated\n\n07.01.2020 passed in W.P.No.11482 of 2019.               Even this\n\naspect also is of no significance now, as the core issue has\n\nbeen answered by this Court.12.   Learned counsel for the remaining respondents have\n\nadopted the submissions made by learned Additional\n\nSolicitor General of India and submit that issue raised in\n\nthe present batch of writ petitions is squarely covered by\n\nthe decision dated 26.07.2022 rendered in W.P.No.33111\n\nof 2013 and batch.13.   Before we advert to the decisions cited by learned\n\ncounsel for the petitioners, we may refer to our order dated\n\n17.08.2022, which reads as follow:"These matters are listed today under the caption\n      "covered matters" on mentioning being made by Mr. K.\n      Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for respondents, on\n      03.08.2022.At   this   stage,   Mr.Mohan,   learned   counsel\n      representing Mr. Ch. Venkat Raman, learned counsel for\n      the petitioner in item No.377 i.e., W.P.No.6423 of 2022,\n      submits that W.P.No.6423 of 2022 relates to a different10subject matter unconnected with the present batch and\ntherefore, the same may be segregated.In the instant batch of writ petitions, the prayer\nmade is for a declaration that the action of Singareni\nCollieries Company Limited and its authorities in\ninsisting payment of Coal Mines Provident Fund by the\ncontractors (petitioners) for persons engaged by the\ncontractors, such as drivers etc., in carrying out\ncontract work relating to transportation of coal from the\nSingareni Collieries Company Limited, as illegal and\narbitrary.In a batch of writ petitions, being W.P.No.33111\nof 2013 and others, the question which fell for\nconsideration and for which reference was made to the\nDivision Bench was as follows:-"Whether a driver employed by a transport\n       contractor engaged by the Singareni Collieries\n       Company Limited for transportation of coal would\n       fall within the definition of the term 'employee'\n       underSection 2(d)of the Coal Mines Provident\n       Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 or\n       not?"On due consideration, the Division Bench by a\n\ncommon judgment and order dated 26.07.2022 held as\n\nfollows:-"21.    From a conjoint reading and careful analysis\n       of the above provisions, the irresistible conclusion\n       one can draw is that the Act is a beneficial piece of\n       legislation. It is intended to confer certain benefits11on labour working in or in connection with a coal\nmine. Thus the provisions of the Act are to be\nconstrued liberally. In the circumstances, in view\nof the order passed by the learned Single Judge in\nK.Venkateswarlu (supra) and decisions rendered\nby the Coal 27 Mines Provident Fund Organisation\nholding that activity undertaken by the contractor\nfalls within the ambit of the definition 'coal mine',\nthe employees engaged by the contractor would be\nentitled to the benefits under the Act as well as\nunder the provisions of the Coal Mines Provident\nFund Scheme. The doubts expressed by the\nlearned Single Judge in the previous round of\nlitigation i.e., in Mallikarjuna Transport (supra)\ndoes not appear to be justified and the same has\nbeen proved by the consequential orders passed by\nthe Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation.22.   Thus upon thorough consideration of all\naspects of the matter, we have no hesitation in\nholding that a driver employed by a transport\ncontractor    engaged    by       the   company   for\ntransportation of coal would come within the\ndefinition of the term 'employee' underSection 2(b)of the Act. Therefore, such a driver or employee\nwould be entitled to the benefits of the Act and the\nCoal Mines Provident Fund Scheme.23. The referred question is answered accordingly.24. In view of the decision rendered above, all the\nwrit petitions would naturally have to fail and\naccordingly those are dismissed. However, there\nshall be no order as to costs."12Therefore, the present batch of writ petitions is\n      squarely covered by the above decision rendered by the\n      Division Bench of this Court.At this stage, Mr. L. Sridhar, learned counsel\n      submits that he is led by Mr. D.V. Chalapathi Rao,\n      learned counsel, and therefore the order may be passed\n      in the presence of his senior."14.InKarachi Bakery's case (supra) order was passed\n\nby the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner invoking the\n\nprovisions    of   theEmployees'      Provident   Funds       and\n\nMiscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, for the employees of\n\nKarachi Bakery for the period April 1, 1977 to March 21,\n\n1979. By the said order, contribution and administrative\n\ncharges of Rs.20,384.25 was levied on the employer i.e.,\n\nKarachi Bakery as its contribution to the provident fund.\n\nThis order came to be challenged by way of a writ petition.\n\nHowever, the writ petition was dismissed which led to filing\n\nof the appeal.        The Division Bench adverted to the\n\ndefinition   of    "employee"     underSection    2(f)of   the\n\nEmployees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions\n\nAct, 1952, as it stood at the relevant time.          Applying the\n\nabove definition, the Court posed the question as to13whether employees of Devandas Bakery and Ram Bakery\n\ncould be said to be employed for wages in any kind of work\n\nin connection with the work of Karachi Bakery and\n\nwhether those employees got their wages directly or\n\nindirectly from Karachi Bakery, then whether they could be\n\nconstrued to be employed by or through a contractor or in\n\nconnection with the work of Karachi Bakery or whether\n\nthey could be treated as employees of Karachi Bakery? In\n\nthe above context, the Court noticed that the other two\n\nfirms were treated as independent units engaging their own\n\nlabour for the purpose of manufacture of separate products\n\nand the employees of these independent units could not be\n\nbrought underSection 2(f)of the Employees' Provident\n\nFund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 as employees\n\nof    Karachi   Bakery.   Therefore,   the   appellate   Court\n\ninterfered with the order passed by the Regional Provident\n\nFund Commissioner and reversed the finding of the learned\n\nSingle Judge.15.    The facts inKarachi Bakery's case (supra) and the\n\nissues considered therein are clearly distinguishable from14the facts of the related batch of writ petitions, being\n\nW.P.No.33111 of 2013 and batch.16.Insofar the decision of the Calcutta High Court inStandard Chartered Bank's case (supra) is concerned,\n\nthat was a case where the question arose as to whether the\n\ncanteen employees were employees of the bank. Applying\n\nthe principle of ultimate control, learned Single Judge of\n\nthe Calcutta High Court took the view that employees of\n\nthe canteen may not be construed to be employees of the\n\nbank. Therefore, the writ petition filed at the instance of\n\nthe bank assailing the order of the Assistant Provident\n\nFund Commissioner was disposed of remitting the matter\n\nback to the authority to take a fresh decision in accordance\n\nwith law. We are of the considered opinion thatthe above\n\ndecisionrendered by the learned Single Judge having only\n\npersuasive value is also distinguishable on the facts and\n\ncircumstances of the case.17.   As regards the decision of the Kerala High Court in\n\nP.R.Narahari Rao's case (supra) is concerned, the issue\n\nbefore the Kerala High Court was the dispute relating to15contribution payable in respect of the temporary/casual\n\nworkmen of a covered establishment under the provisions\n\nof theEmployees' State Insurance Act, 1948.18.   Insofar the Division Bench decision of this Court in\n\nW.P.No.33111 of 2013 and batch is concerned, the same\n\nwas decided on a reference made in view of the two\n\nconflicting decisions of Single Benches.               The question\n\nwhich was referred to the Division Bench was as under:"Whether a driver employed by a transport\n       contractor   engaged   by    the    Singareni   Collieries\n       Company Limited for transportation of coal would fall\n       within the definition of the term 'employee' underSection 2(d)of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and\n       Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 or not?"19.    After narrating the factual aspects and related\n\norders of this Court, the Division Bench delved into the\n\nrelevant provisions of the Act and held as follows:"12.The    Coal   Mines        Provident   Fund     and\n      Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948(already referred to\n      as 'the Act' hereinbefore) has been enacted to make\n      provisions for the framing of a Provident Fund Scheme,\n      a Pension Scheme, a Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme\n      and a Bonus Scheme for persons employed in Coal16Mines. 'Coal Mine' is defined inSection 2(b)of the Act.Section 2(b)of the Act is as under:(b) "Coal mine" means any excavation where any\n           operation      for   the    purpose   of    searching   for   or\n           obtaining coal has been or is being carried on, and\n           includes-(i)         all borings and bore holes;\n           (ii)        all shafts, in or adjacent to and belonging to acoal mine, whether in the course of being\n                       sunk or not;(iii)       all levels and inclined places in the course of\n                       being driven;(iv)        any open cast working or quarry, that is to\n                       say, an excavation where any operation for\n                       the purpose of searching for or obtaining coal\n                       has been or is being carried on, not being a\n                       shaft or an excavation which extends below\n                       superjacent ground;(v)         all conveyors or aerial rope-ways provided for\n                       the bringing into or removal from a coal mine\n                       of coal or other articles or for the removal of\n                       refuse therefrom;(vi)        all adits, levels, planes, machinery, works,\n                       railways,    tramways     and    sidings,   in    oradjacent to and belonging to a coal mine;(vii)       all workshops situated within the precincts of\n                       a coal mine and under the same management\n                       and used for purposes connected with that\n                       coal mine or a number of coal mines under\n                       the same management;(viii)      any office of a coal mine;\n           (ix)        all power stations for supplying electricity forthe purpose of working the coal mine or a\n                       number of coal mines under the same\n                       management;(x)         any premises for the time being used for\n                       depositing refuse from a coal mine, or in\n                       which any operation in connection with such\n                       refuse is being carried on, being premises\n                       exclusively occupied by the employer of the\n                       coal mine;(xi)        all hospitals and canteens maintained for the\n                       benefit of the employees of a coal mine or a17number of coal mines under the same\n                    management;(xii)    any coke oven or plant;(xiii)   any premises in or adjacent to and belonging\n                    to a coal mine, on which any plant or other\n                    machinery connected with a coal mine is\n                    situated or on which any process ancillary to\n                    the work of a coal mine is being carried on.12.1. Thus, from the above it is seen that definition of\n'coal mine' is a broad based one. It means any\nexcavation where any operation for the purpose of\nsearching for or obtaining coal has been or is being\ncarried on and includes all borings, bore holes etc. It is\nan inclusive definition which includes all workshops\nsituated within the precincts of a coal mine and under\nthe same management and used for purposes connected\nwith that coal mine or a number of coal mines under the\nsame management; any office of a coal mine; all power\nstations for supplying electricity for the purpose of\nworking the coal mine or a number of coal mines under\nthe same management; any premises for the time being\nused for depositing refuse from a coal mine or any\noperation in connection with such refuse is being\ncarried on, being premises exclusively occupied by the\nemployer of the coal mine; all hospitals and canteens\nmaintained for the benefit of the employees of a coal\nmine or a number of coal mines under the same\nmanagement; any coke oven or plant etc.13.   Learned Single Judge in K.Venkateswarlu (supra)\nobserved that the expression 'coal mine' is defined as\nany premises in or adjacent to and belonging to a coal\nmine, on which any plant or other machinery connected18with a coal mine is situated or on which any process\nancillary to the work of coal mine is being carried. Even\nthe authority while passing consequential order has\ntaken or given a broad interpretation to the expression\n'coal mine'.14.Section 2(d)of the Act defines the word 'employee'\nas under:(d) "employee" means any person who is employed\n       for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or\n       in connection with a coal mine, and who gets his wages\n       directly or indirectly from the employer, and includes-(1)   any   person   employed   by   or   through   a\n       contractor or in connection with a coal mine, and\n                (2) for the purposes of the Coal Mines Provident\n       Fund Scheme, also(i) any other person who is employed as a sanitary\n                worker, mali, teacher or domestic servant in or in\n                connection with a coal mine and who receives\n                wages directly from the employer, and(ii) any apprentice or trainee who receives stipend\n                or other remuneration from the employer.14.1. Thus, 'employee' has been defined to mean any\nperson who is employed for wages in any kind of work,\nmanual or otherwise, in a coal mine or in connection\nwith a coal mine and who gets his wages directly or\nindirectly from the employer and includes (1) any person\nemployed by or through a contractor in or in connection\nwith a coal mine and (2) for the purposes of the Coal\nMines Provident Fund Scheme (i) any person who is\nemployed as a sanitary worker, mali, teacher or\ndomestic servant in a coal mine or in connection with a\ncoal mine and who receives wages directly from the\nemployer; and (ii) any apprentice or trainee who receives\nstipend or other remuneration from the employer. Again19here also, the word 'employee' has been given a broad\nmeaning which includes any person who is employed\ndirectly or through a contractor in a coal mine or in\nconnection with a coal mine and includes persons\nengaged as sanitary worker, mali, teacher or domestic\nservant etc. It also includes any apprentice or trainee\nwho receives stipend or other remuneration from the\nemployer.15.   This brings us to the definition of 'employer'.\n'Employer' is defined inSection 2(e)of the Act as under:(e) "employer', when used in relation to a coal\n      mine, means any person who is the immediate proprietor\n      or lessee or occupier of the coal mine or of any part thereof\n      and in the case of a coal mine the business whereof is\n      being carried on by a liquidator or receiver, such liquidator\n      or receiver and in the case of a coal mine owned by a\n      company the business whereof is being carried on by a\n      managing agent, such managing agent; but does not\n      include a person who merely receives a royalty, rent or fine\n      from the coal mine, or is merely the proprietor of the coal\n      mine, subject to any lease, grant or licence for the working\n      thereof, or is merely the owner of the soil and not\n      interested in the coal of the coal mine; but any contractor\n      for the working of a coal mine or any part thereof shall be\n      subject to this Act in like manner as if he were an\n      employer, but not so as to exempt the employer from any\n      liability.15.1. Thus, the word 'employer' when it is used in\nrelation to a coal mine means any person who is the\nimmediate proprietor or lessee or occupier of the coal\nmine or any part thereof and includes a contractor for\nthe working of a coal mine or any part thereof and who\nwould be subject to provisions of the Act in a like\nmanner as if he were an employer, but not so as to\nexempt the employer from any liability.2015.2. Thus, as per the above definition, a contractor\n      working for a coal mine would also be included in the\n      definition of 'employer'.16.Section 2(f)defines 'fund' to mean the provident\n      fund established under the Coal Mines Provident Fund\n      Scheme."20.   Referring to clause 25A of the Coal Mines Provident\n\nFund Scheme, 1948, the Division Bench held that the\n\nworks carried out by a contractor, transporting coal or\n\nofficials of the coal mine, would be covered by the\n\nprovisions of the Act. It has been held as follows:"17.   Clause 25A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund\n      Scheme, 1948 explains the class of employees required\n      to join the fund after 31.12.1961. As per sub-clause (1),\n      every employee of a coal mine to which the Scheme\n      applies other than an excluded employee shall be\n      required to join the 'fund' and become a member\n      immediately after the end of the month following any\n      month or quarter as the case may be in which he\n      completes the days of attendance as mentioned in sub-\n      clause (v) therein.18.    Thus, on a conjoint reading of the definitions of\n      'coal mine', 'employee' and 'employer', it is evident that\n      the works carried out by a contractor, transporting coal21or officials of the coal mine would be covered by the\n      provisions of the Act."21.   During the hearing, learned Additional Solicitor\n\nGeneral of India also referred to paragraph 19 of the\n\naforesaid judgment to contend that the contractor had\n\nentered into a contract agreement with the Singareni\n\nCollieries Company Limited as per which the contractor\n\nhad bound himself to comply with the provisions of the Act\n\nand Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme.22.   Upon thorough consideration of the matter, the\n\nDivision Bench concluded as under:"21.   From a conjoint reading and careful analysis of\n      the above provisions, the irresistible conclusion one can\n      draw is that the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation. It\n      is intended to confer certain benefits on labour working\n      in or in connection with a coal mine. Thus the\n      provisions of the Act are to be construed liberally. In the\n      circumstances, in view of the order passed by the\n      learned Single Judge in K.Venkateswarlu v. Coal\n      Mines Provident Fund Organisation (W.P.No.29331 of\n      2013 dated 09.10.2013) and decisions rendered by the\n      Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation holding that\n      activity undertaken by the contractor falls within the\n      ambit of the definition 'coal mine', the employees\n      engaged by the contractor would be entitled to the22benefits under the Act as well as under the provisions of\n      the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme.The doubts\n      expressed by the learned Single Judge in the previous\n      round of litigation i.e., in M/s.Mallikarjuna Transport\n      v.    Singareni     Collieries    Company       Limited\n      (W.P.No.11107of 2009 and batch, dated 30.03.2011)\n      does not appear to be justified and the same has been\n      proved by the consequential orders passed by the Coal\n      Mines Provident Fund Organisation.22.   Thus upon thorough consideration of all aspects\n      of the matter, we have no hesitation in holding that a\n      driver employed by a transport contractor engaged by\n      the company for transportation of coal would come\n      within the definition of the term 'employee' underSection 2(b)of the Act. Therefore, such a driver or\n      employee would be entitled to the benefits of the Act and\n      the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme.23.   The referred question is answered accordingly."23.      We have applied our mind to the facts and\n\ncircumstances of the case and we have no hesitation to\n\nopine that the issue raised in the present batch of writ\n\npetitions is squarely covered by the answer given by the\n\nDivision Bench of this Court in W.P.No.33111 of 2013 and\n\nbatch.2324.   Consequently and following the aforesaid order, all\n\nthe writ petitions are dismissed.Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall\n\nstand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.______________________________________\n                                    UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ\n\n\n\n\n                           ______________________________________\n                                 C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J\n\n\n24.08.2022\nvs