ORDER
D. Murugesan, J.
1. The petitioner has approached this Court for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to accept the nomination of the respective General Managers of the respective cement manufacturing units at Sankar Nagar and Sankaridurg of the petitioner company nominated by the Board of Directors as owners of the mines attached to the respective cement manufacturing units for the purpose of Section 76 of the Mines Act 1952. the brief facts leading to the writ petition may be summarized as follows.
2. The petitioner namely The India Cements Limited is a company incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act 1913. The main object of the company at the time of incorporation was to manufacture and sell cement. In the course of time, the company besides the cement manufacturing activity also engaged in the other business activities such as shipping, real estate and property development, manufacturing of calcium carbide, manufacturing of foundry products through its different units established for the said purposes. The management of the company is being carried on through the Managing Director of the company who discharges his duties and responsibilities under the guidance and supervision of the Board of Directors of the company. The General Managers are appointed to carry out the day-to-day operations and activities of each of the units and such General Managers are responsible for the affairs and management of each of the units. The Board of Directors of the Company are persons of eminence having expertise and sound knowledge in their respective fields such as finance, technical, legal etc. In view of their eminence and expertise, these Directors are not only Directors of the petitioner company but also the Directors in other corporate bodies. The office of the Managing Director who functions under the control and superintendence of the Board of Directors of the company is located in Madras. For manufacturing of cement, the company has three cement manufacturing units. Two units are located in the State of Tamil Nadu, one at Sankarnagar, Nellai Kattabomman District (presently known as Tirunelveli District) and the other at Sankaridurg, Salem District. The third manufacturing unit is located at Chilamakur Village, Cuddapah District, Andhra Pradesh. All the three units are managed by the respective General Managers of the unit. The principal raw material required for manufacturing of cement is limestone and for its requirements the company has its captive limestone mines attached to the respective cement manufacturing units of the company. The limestone obtained from the mines are utilized in the respective units for manufacturing cement. Since the three manufacturing units are located in different places, it would not be possible for a single person to assume control and management of all the three units, General Managers have been appointed to manage the day-to-day affairs of each unit. The General Managers so appointed are qualified engineers having sound technical knowledge and exercise effective administrative control to manage the affairs of the cement manufacturing units which included the mining activities in the mines attached to the units. The General Managers so appointed were nominated as owners under the Proviso to Section 76 of the Mines Act 1952. The Board of Directors of the Company resolved in their resolution on 20.12.1990 nominating one Mr. P.K. Subramanian as owner of the mine in respect of the mines attached to the Sankarnagar unit. In respect of the Sankaridurg cement manufacturing unit at Salem, District, after the retirement of the then General Manager Mr. G. Ramji, by a resolution of the Board of Directors dated 23.10.1992 one Mr. R. Arunachalam was appointed as the owner of the mines attached to the said manufacturing unit. Similarly, in respect of the Chilamakur cement manufacturing unit in Cuddapah District, Andhra Pradesh, after the demise of the then General Manager late Mr. N. Lokanathan, the Board of Directors in their resolution dated 27.5.1994 appointed one Mr. D. Sivagurunathan as the owner of the mines attached to the said factory. After the appointments of the above individuals as General Managers, the respondents were informed of their nominations as owners under Section 76 of the Mines Act 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' in respect of the Sankarnagar and Sankaridurg units by letter dated 24.12.1993. However, the said nominations were rejected by the respondents with further direction that if the company were to take advantage of Section 76 of 'the Act', only a Board of Director of the company should be nominated as owner. Several representations dated 11.4.1994, 8.6.1994, 25.7.1994 and explanations from the petitioner company did not yield any fruit with the respondents. Since the request of the petitioner nominating the General Managers as owners of the respective mines at Sankarnagar and Sankaridurg have not been accepted, the petitioner is constrained to file the present writ petition.
3. Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the petitioner would contend that as per the proviso (c) to Section 76 of 'the Act', in the case of a company, anyone of its Directors or managers can be nominated. As per the definition of 'owner' under Section 2(1)(l) of 'the Act', 'Owner' means, any person who is the immediate proprietor or lessee or occupier of the mine. The said definition Section has to be read along with proviso (c) to Section 76 of 'the Act'. The learned Additional Advocate General in this context submitted, when the Mines Act was enacted during the year 1952, Directors of public company may be prosecuted and punished for violation or non-compliance of the provisions of 'the Act'. Proviso (C) to Section 76 of 'the Act' empowered the public company to nominate any of its Directors as owner of the mine for the purpose of Section 76. When the said Section was amended by amendment Act 62 of 1959, all or any of the Directors of the company were held liable for prosecution under 'the Act'. Proviso (C) to Section 76 once again empowered the company to nominate any of its Directors as owner of the mine for the purpose of Section 76. By the said amendment Act 62 of 1959, such nominated Directors shall be the resident in each case in any place to which the act extends and who is in each case either in fact in charge of the management of or holds the largest number of shares in such company to assume the responsibility of the owner of the mine and such Director so long as he continues to so reside and be in charge or hold the largest number of shares be deemed to be the owner of the mine for the purpose of 'the Act'. 'The Act' underwent a further amendment during the year 1983 by amendment Act 42 of 1983 wherein again all or any of the Directors of the company may be prosecuted under Section 76. Proviso (C) to Section 76 underwent a major change wherein the company was authorized to nominate any of its Directors or manager. The inclusion of Manager assumes significance since the word 'Manager' is different and distinct from the word Directors. By the said amendment, the company is empowered to nominate the managers also and therefore, the nomination of the General Managers as owners of the two units ought to have been accepted by the respondents. The learned Additional Advocate General would submit that while interpreting any provision of any enactment, the cardinal rule of construction of statutes is to read the statue literally, that is, by giving to the words used by the legislature their ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning. The learned Additional Advocate General in support of the above submission relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in Jugalkishore Saraf v. Raw Cotton Co. Ltd. and Mohammad Ali Khan v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 165. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, a plaint reading of proviso (C) to Section 76 as amended by Act 42 of 1983 would mean that a manager whether he is a paid servant or a Director when anyone of the Directors is appointed as a manager. The learned Additional Advocate General would further submit that the General Managers who are qualified engineers and expert in the mining activities have the ultimate control of the respective mines and the Directors who are expertise in the various other financial, technical and other fields are not expertise in the mining area. In view of the above only, the experts in the mining field are appointed as General Managers giving a complete control of the respective mines. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the General Managers have the ultimate control of the respective mines. When the ultimate control vests with the respective General Managers, they should be considered as the owners of the respective mines. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the nomination of General Managers as owners under proviso (C) to Section 76 has to be construed as one in conformity with the provision of Section 2(1)(l) and Section 76 of 'the Act'. Therefore, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the direction as prayed for in the writ petition should be granted.
4. Mr. G. Jayachandran, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel on the other hand would submit, that the object of 'the Act' is to regulate the labour and safety in mines. For enforcement of 'the Act', the Authorities are bound to give paramount consideration to the safety of the workers engaged in mines. All the provisions of 'the Act' should be interpreted with the object of the safety of the workers working in the mines. The learned Counsel submitted that it is true by amendment Act 42 of 1983, the company is empowered to nominate any of its Directors or manager as owner of a mine for the purpose of Section 76 of the Act. When the said Section is interpreted, it is proper to read the statute literally that is, by giving to the words used by the legislature their ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning. The managers can be nominated not only on the ground that they were appointed as managers but also such manager should be a resident in any place to which 'the Act' extends and in fact in charge of the management or holds the largest number of shares in such company to assume the responsibility of owner of the mine for the purpose of 'the Act'. So long as he continues to reside and be in charge or holds the largest number of shares be deemed to be the owner of the mine for the purpose of 'the Act'. A complete reading of the said Section would reveal that the manager either should be in charge or hold the largest number of shares of the company to assume the responsibility of the company for the purpose of being nominated as owner. In this context, the learned Counsel submitted that the General Managers who are nominated as owners are only paid servants of the petitioner company. They cannot be in any way called as in charge of the management of the mines to assume the responsibility of the mines. The ultimate control of such management of the mines vest only with the Directors. Therefore, proviso (c) to Section 76 empowering the company to nominate the manager as the owner for the purpose of the said Section shall mean a manager who also being a Director of the company.
5. The learned Counsel would further submit that the provisions of the Factories Act 1948 empowered such nominations for the occupier which is identical to the one of Section 76 of the Mines Act 1952 requiring the nomination of the owner. The Supreme Court in the judgment reported in Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Connechen while considering Section 2(n) of the Factories Act relating to the occupier held that only a Director of the company can be an occupier of the factory. The learned Counsel in this context also relied upon a judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court reported in Chief Inspector of Mines v. Karam Chandra Thapar , wherein Section 2(1)(l) of the Mines Act which defines the owner came up for consideration where the Supreme Court has held that the word owner does not include manager or agent. Therefore, the learned Counsel submitted that the word manager in Proviso (c) to Section 76 does not include a paid servant of the company and it shall necessarily mean a manager appointed from among the Directors of the company. The learned Counsel submitted that since the ultimate control of the affairs of the mines vest with the Directors, in order to escape the liability of prosecution under Section 76, the Board of Directors nominate the managers of the company who are paid servants who do not have ultimate control over the mines. If such nominations are accepted, that would defeat the very purpose of the object of 'the Act' which is based on to regulate the mining activity and concerned about the safety of the workers. Therefore only the petitioner was insisted to nominate anyone of the Directors as owner for the purpose of Section 76. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to the direction at the hands of this Court to the respondents to accept the nominations made by the petitioner to the General Managers to be the owners of the company cannot be accepted.
6. Before considering the rival submissions of the respective counsel, the following some of the provisions of the Mines Act 1952 are worth mentioning.
Section 2(1)(h) : In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires-
a person is said to be 'employed' in a mine who works as the manager or who works under appointment by the owner, agent or manager of the mine or with the knowledge of the manager, whether for wages or not-
(i) in any mining operation (including the concomitant operations of handling and transport of minerals up to the point of dispatch and of gathering sand and transport thereof to the mine);
(ii) in operations or services relating to the development of the mine including construction of plant therein but excluding construction of buildings, roads, wells and any building work not directly connected with any existing or future mining operations;
(iii) in operating, servicing, maintaining or repairing any part of any machinery used in or about the mine;
(iv) in operations, within the premises of the mine, loading for dispatch of minerals;
(v) in any office of the mine;
(vi) in any welfare, health, sanitary, or conservancy services required to be provided under this Act, or watch and ward, within the premises of the mine excluding residential area; or
(vii) in any kind of work whatsoever which is preparatory or incidental to, or connected with, mining operations.
Section 2(1)(l) : 'Owner', when used in relation to a mine, means any person who is the immediate proprietor or lessee or occupier of the mine or of any part thereof and in the case of a mine the business whereof is being carried on by a liquidator or receiver, such liquidator or receiver but does not include a person who merely receives a royalty, rent or fine from the mine, or is merely the proprietor of the mine, subject to any lease, grant or licence for the working thereof, or is merely the owner of the soil and not interested in the minerals of the mine; but (any contractor or sub-lessee) for the working of a mine or any part thereof shall be subject to this Act in like manner as if he were an owner, but not so as to exempt the owner from any liability.
Section 17 : Managers : (1) Save as may be otherwise prescribed, every mine shall be under a sole manager who shall have the prescribed qualifications and the owner or agent of every mine shall appoint a person having such qualification to be the manager : Provided that the owner or agent may appoint himself as manager if he possesses the prescribed qualifications.
(2) Subject to any instructions given to him by or on behalf of the owner or agent of the mine, the manager shall be responsible for the overall management, control, supervision and direction of the mine and all such instructions when given by the owner or agent shall be confirmed in writing forthwith.
(3) Except in case of an emergency, the owner or agent of a mine or anyone on his behalf shall not give, otherwise than through the manager, instructions affecting the fulfilment of his statutory duties, to a person, employed in a mine, who is responsible to the manager.
Section 18 : Duties and responsibilities of owners, agents and managers : (1) The owner and agent of every mine shall each be responsible for making financial and other provisions and for taking such other steps as may be necessary for compliance with the provisions of this Act and the regulations, rules, bye-laws and orders made thereunder.
(2) The responsibility in respect of matters provided for in the rules made under Clauses (d), (e) and (p) of Section 58 shall be exclusively carried out by the owner and agent of the mine and by such person (other than the manager) whom the owner or agent may appoint for securing compliance with the aforesaid provisions.
(3) If the carrying out of any instructions given under Sub-section (2) or given otherwise than through the manager under Sub-section (3) of Section 17, results in the contravention of the provisions of this Act or of the regulations, rules, bye-laws or orders made thereunder, every person giving such instructions shall also be liable for the contravention of the provisions concerned.
(4) Subject to the provisions of Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) the owner, agent and manager of every mine shall each be responsible to see that all operations carried on in connection with the mine are conducted in accordance with the provisions of this Act and of the regulations, rules, bye-laws and order made thereunder.
Section 58 : Power of Central Government to make rules : The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules consistent with this Act for all or any of the following purposes, namely-
(d) for requiring the maintenance in mines wherein any women are employed or were employed in any day of the preceding twelve months of suitable rooms to be reserved for the use of children under the age of six years belonging to such women, and for prescribing, either generally or with particular reference to the number of women employed in the mine, the number and standards of such rooms, and the nature and extent of the amenities to be provided and the supervision to be exercised therein;
(e) for requiring and maintenance at or near pitheads of bathing placed equipped with shower baths and of locker-rooms for the use of men employed in mines and of similar and separate places and rooms for the use of women in mines where women are employed, and for prescribing, either generally or with particular reference to the number of men and women ordinarily employed in a mine, the number and standards of such places and rooms;
(p) for requiring the provision and maintenance in any mine specified in this behalf by the Chief Inspector or Inspector wherein more then two hundred and fifty persons are ordinarily employed, of a canteen or canteens for the use of such persons;
Section 69 : Failure to appoint manager : Whoever, in contravention of the provisions of Section 17, fails to appoint a manager shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to two thousand and five hundred rupees, or with both.
Section 76 : Determination of owner in certain cases : Where the owner of a mine is a firm or other association of individuals, all, or any of the partners or members thereof or where the owner of a mine is a company, all or any of the Directors thereof or where the owner of a mine is a Government or any local authority, all or any of the officers or persons authorized by such Government or local authority, as the case may be, to manage the affairs of the mine, may be prosecuted and punished under this Act, for any offence for which the owner of a mine is punishable'
Provided that where a firm, association or company has given notice in writing to the Chief Inspector that it has nominated,-
(a) in the case of a firm, any of its partners or managers;
(b) in the case of an association, any of its members or managers;
(c) in the case of a company, any of its Directors or managers,
who is resident, in each case in any place to which this Act extends and who is in each case either in fact in charge of the management of, or holds the largest number of shares in such firm, association or company, to assume the responsibility of the owner of the mine for the purposes of this Act, such partner, member, Director or manager, as the case may be, shall, so long as he continues to so reside and be in charge or hold the largest number of shares as aforesaid, be deemed to be the owner of the mine for the purposes of this Act unless a notice in writing cancelling his nomination or stating that he has ceased to be a partner, member, Director or manager, as the case may be, is received by the Chief Inspector.
Explanation : Where a firm, association or company has different establishments or branches or different units in any establishment or branch, different persons may be nominated under this proviso in relation to different establishments or branches or units and the person so nominated shall, with respect only to the establishment, branch or unit in relation to which he has been nominated, be deemed to be the owner of the mine.
The object of the Mines Act 1952 is to regulate the labour and safety in mines. The object of the Factories Act 1948 is also to regulate labour in factories. There is no specific reference in the Factories Act 1948, in respect of any safety in mines. While considering the provisions of the Factories Act, the Supreme Court observed 'that the Factories Act 1948 is an Act to consolidate the law regulating factories. It is a piece of social welfare legislation enacted primarily with the object of protecting workmen employed in factories against industrial and occupational hazards. The stringent provisions relating to the obligations of the occupiers or managers with a view to protect workers and to secure to them employment in conditions conducive to their health and safety, indicate the broad purpose of the Act. The Supreme Court further observed that when the Act was amended by Act 94 of 1976 with a view to remove some lacunae relating to the definition of 'workers' and for improvement of the provisions in regard to safety of workers and appointment of safety officers and to provide for an enquiry in every case of a fatal accident, some difficulties experienced in the administration of the Factories Act 1948. Even after the amendment Act 94 of 1976 same difficulties experienced in the administration of the Act specially in relation to safety conditions and development of appropriate work culture conducive to safety and health of workers particularly in case of factories which deals with hazardous materials and the escape routes which the employers had found to shift their responsibilities on some employee or the other and escape punishment and penalty led to the amendment Act of 1987 which inter alia amended Section 2(n) and deleted Section 100 by inserting Section 7-A, Chapter IV-A, Section 104-A and Section 106-A, besides certain other provisions. The Supreme Court taking note of the provisions contained in first Proviso to Section 100(2) (delated by amendment Act 1987) where the occupier of factory was a company only when there was no compulsion under the Act where the occupier of a factory was a company, only a Director should be nominated as an occupier. The Supreme Court also took note of the fact that some of the companies taking advantage of the option contained in the Proviso to Section 100(2) of the Act and noticing the stringent provisions for punishment for breach of some of the provisions of the Act, instead of nominating a Director as the occupier, used to nominate some other employee or officer as an occupier of the factory and, thus, whenever any violation of the Act was committed, it was that employee or officer who was subjected to penalty and punishment and not the Director or any one of them. The Supreme Court after upholding the validity of Section 2(n) of the factories relating to the definition of occupier ultimately held that the Directors are the ultimate controlling authority over the management of the company when the company is the owner and the manager or any other employee who has immediate and day-to-day control over the affairs of the factory cannot be nominated as occupier. The Supreme Court in the judgment reported in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India . observed the modalities of the company in nominating the managers as occupier as an escape route. Holding so, the Supreme Court has held that in case of a company which owns or runs the factory, it is only a Director of the company who could be notified as the occupier of the factory within the meaning of proviso (ii) to Section 2(n) of the Act. The said law laid down by the Supreme Court is based upon the object of the Factories Act enacted to regulate the factories and also taking note of the fact that the said enactment is a piece of social welfare legislation enacted primarily with the object of protecting workmen employed in factories against industrial and occupational hazards.
[Italics supplied]
7. Coming to the Mines Act 1952, the object is more specific where it has been clearly stated that the Act was to amend the consolidated the law relating to the regulation of labour and safety in mines. The Mines Act is also a piece of social welfare legislation enacted primarily with the object of protecting the workmen employed in the mines against industrial and occupational hazards more particularly, keeping the safety of the workmen as paramount. Therefore, the Mines Act provides for stringent provisions relating to the obligation of the owners with a view to protect the workers and to secure to them employment and condition conducive to their health and safety. With the above object in mind, some of the provisions of the Mines Act 1952 are to be considered. Section 2(1)(h) of 'the Act' while defining a person who is said to be employed in a mine included the manager also thereby indicating that the manager is construed to be a person said to be employed. Section 17 of the Act relates to a condition that every mine shall be under a sole manager who shall have the prescribed qualification and the owner or agent of every mine. Therefore, there is a compulsion on the part of the company to appoint managers in respect of every mine. The company is also punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to Rs. 2,500 and with both when it fails to appoint such manager. The Proviso to Section 17 also stipulates that even the owner or agent may be appointed as manager provided such owner or agent possesses the prescribed qualification. Section 18 of the Act prescribes the duties and responsibilities of owners, agents and managers. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 18, the responsibility in respect of matters provided for in the rules made Clauses (d), (e) and (p) of Section 58 shall be exclusively carried out by the owner and agent of the mine and by such person other than the manager whom the owner or agent may appoint for securing compliance with the aforesaid provisions. Rules that can be made in Clauses (d), (e) and (p) of Section 58 relate to maintenance of mines in regard to certain facilities wherein women are employed, and requiring the provision and maintenance of any mine specified by the Chief Inspector or Inspector where there are more than 250 persons re ordinarily employed, of a canteen or canteens for the use of such persons. In so far as the provisions of Clauses (d), (e) and (p) of Section 5 8, the managers have no responsibilities as the duties and responsibilities of the managers are subject to the conditions enumerated under Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 18. A reading of the above Sections 17 and 18 of the Act goes to show that managers have no ultimate control over the affairs of the mines in respect of all matters concerned in such mines. Therefore, managers cannot be made responsible for contravention of the provisions of the rules made under Clauses (d), (e) and (p) of Section 58. In the light of the above discussion, the provisions of Section 76 of the Act is to be considered. As pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General, when the Mines Act 1952 was enacted, Section 76 provided for prosecution and punishment where the owner of a mine is a public company anyone of the Directors of the company may be prosecuted and punished provided such public company was also empowered to nominate any of its Directors as owner for the purpose of Section 76. The said Act was amended by amendment Act 62 of 1959 where in the place of anyone of the Directors who could be considered as owner of the mine in the case of public company, all or any of the Directors of the company were treated as the owners of mine for the purpose of Section 76. A company also was empowered to nominate anyone of the Directors as the owner of the company under proviso (C). However, a condition was imposed for such Director being appointed as owner wherein such Director shall be a resident in the place to which the Act extends and he is in charge of the management or holds the largest number of shares and shall also continue to be in charge and holds the largest number of shares. By subsequent amendment Act 42 of 1983, for the first time the company is empowered to nominate any of its Directors or manager as owner of the mine for the purpose of Section 76, provided such Manager shall be in charge of the management or holds the largest number of shares in such company. Based upon the above amendments Mr. R. Muthukarumarasamy, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that in view of the inclusion of the manager in the amendment Act 42 of 1983 and by applying the dictum of the Supreme Court laid down in the judgment reported in Jugalkishore Saraf v. Raw Cotton Co. Ltd and if the said provision is read literally in its ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning as used by the legislature, the managers, the General Managers as in this case could be nominated as owners of the company. His contention is that there cannot be a different interpretation to the said Section as contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents by insisting the Directors alone could be appointed as Director when such Directors are appointed as manager. It is true that when any of the provisions of the statute is interpreted, the provision has to be read literally considering its ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning. However, while interpreting a statue, the object of the enactment has to be necessarily taken into consideration. As found, the object of the Mines Act is to regulate the labour and safety in mines and the Act is social welfare legislation. Therefore, only stringent provision relating to the obligation of the owner and the manager have been enacted. In 'Heydon's case, (1584) 3 Co Rep 7, it was established as one of the sound rule of construction of a Statute for the sure and true interpretation of all Statutes in general for discerned and consideration as follows.
[Italics supplied]
The true reason of the remedy; and then the office of all the judges is always to make such construction as shall suppress the mischief, and advance the remedy, and to suppress subtle inventions and evasions for continuance of the mischief, and 'pro privato commodo' and to add force and life to the cure and remedy, according to the true intent of the makers of the Act, 'pro bono publico''.
When the Statute is interpreted, the Court has duty to see that by such interpretation the very object of the Act should not be defeated. In this context, it is to be noted that since a company is a legal abstraction, it can act only through its agents who in fact control and determine the management and are the center of its personality. Such agents are generally called the Directors being the 'directing mind and will' of the company. The legislature by enabling the companies to nominate its managers under Proviso to Section 76 did not detract from the generality of the main provision of Section 2(1)(l) and the main provision of Section 76 of 'the Act'. Section 2(1)(l) which defines the owner of the mines included the immediate proprietor or lessee or occupier of the mine also to be the owners but does not include a person who merely receives a royalty or rent from the mine or is merely the proprietor of the mine subject to any lease, grant or licence for the working thereof or is merely the owner of the soil and not interested in the minerals of the mine but included any contractor or sub-lessee for working of a mine. Therefore, the owner should be a person who has ultimate control over the mine and not merely a person who receives royalty or rent from the mine or a proprietor of a mine subject to any lease grant or licence for the working when such owner is made liable for prosecution and punishment under Section 76. The legislature intended to make all or any of the Directors of a company as occupier when the owner of the mine is a company. However, when the company was empowered to nominate any of its Directors or managers as the owner, it shall necessarily mean that such nomination should be from among all or any of the Directors only. The inclusion of the manager would necessarily mean the manager appointed under the Proviso to Section 17 which provided that the owner or agent may appoint himself as manager if he possesses the prescribed qualification. Section 76 also provides that merely because a Director or a manager is nominated as the owner, it need not be accepted unless such Director or manager resides in any place to which the Act extends and who is in each case either in charge of the management or holds the largest number of shares in such company to assume the responsibility of the owner of the mine so long as such Director or manager continues to be in charge and holds the largest number of shares. In view of Sub-sections (1) to (3) of Section 18, the duties and responsibilities of the managers appointed under Section 17 are limited and is not absolute. In such event, the word manager used in Section 76 shall be only relatable to the managers appointed from among the Directors. There is a vast difference between a person having the ultimate control of the affairs of the mines and the one who has immediate or day-to-day control over the affairs of the mines. In the case of a company, the ultimate control of the mines, where the company is the owner of the mines, always vests in the company, through its Board of Directors. The manager or any other employee, of whatever status, can be nominated by the Board of Directors of the owner company to have immediate or day-to-day control of the affairs of the mines. Even in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has specifically stated in paragraph 3 as 'the General Managers have been appointed to manage the day-to-day affairs of each units', which would mean that the General Managers do not have the ultimate control over the affairs of the company to assume the responsibility of owner of the mine. It is the further case of the petitioner that these General Managers were appointed by the resolution of the Board of Directors and therefore they can be nominated as owners. While interpreting Section 2(n) of the Factories Act, the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Connechen has held that even where the resolution of the Board of Directors says that an officer or employee other than one of its Directors shall have the ultimate control over the affairs of the factory, it would only be a camouflage or an artful circumvention because the ultimate control cannot be transferred from that of the company, to one of its employees or its officers, except where there is a complete transfer of the control of the affairs of the factory. When such nominations are made to escape from the liability of prosecution and punishment, the Supreme Court termed such action of the company as one of escape route in the judgment reported in Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Limited v. M.A. Egappan . Such an escape route which had been carved out by the Directors of the company, which owns or runs the factory, was noticed by the Supreme Court and opined that if there was negligence in looking after safety requirements, even the Chairman and Managing Director besides the Board of Directors must be held responsible and liable. It is to be noted that the provisions of Section 76 of 'the Act' was amended only by an amendment Act 42 of 1983. Similar provision under Factories Act was amended by amendment Act 20 of 1987 defining the occupiers as anyone of the Directors of the company. Therefore, the proviso (C) to Section 76 of 'the Act' has to be read in terms of law laid down by the Supreme Court under the Factories Act as the object of both the Acts are similar and both the enactments are social legislations to regulate the factory or mines as the case may be and the safety of mines. By the above principles, it is abundantly clear that the power of the company to nominate a manager as owner of the company under proviso (c) to Section 76 of 'the Act' shall be referrable only to anyone of the Directors of the company. By letter dated 27.5.1985, the 1st respondent requested the petitioner to nominate the managing Director or anyone of the Directors of the company as owner under Section 76 of the Mines Act 1952. In furtherance to the said letter, the petitioner communicated its decision in nominating one Sri. G. Ramji as owner of the mine in Sankaridurg unit based upon the resolution dated 12.10.1987 in their letter dated 10.8.1987 followed by another letter dated 17.12.87. The said request was rejected by the 1st respondent in their letter date 30.5.1989 which reads as follows :
Please refer to your letter No. FSQ : G2 : 1519 : 87 dated 10.8.1987 on the above subject. In this connection I am to inform you that the General Manager of a mine is neither a Director or Manager of the company and thus he cannot have any say in the management of the affairs of the company. His nomination under Section 76 of the Mines Act 1952, as owner of the mines is therefore, not legally valid. The General Manager will come under the definition of Agent as defined under Section 2(c) of the Mines Act 1952. It is therefore, requested that if the advantage of nomination under Section 76 of the Mines act 1952, is proposed to be availed of by the Directors as provided under the Mines Act 1952, a Director of the Company may be nominated as 'Owner' for the purpose of the Mines Act 1952.
A similar request was rejected by the respondent in their letter dated 24.9.1993 in respect of the nomination of one P.L. Subramanian as owner of the mine at Sankarnagar. The further communication of the petitioner in nominating one Mr. R. Arunachalam in the place of Mr. G. Ramji based upon the resolution dated 23.10.1990 was also rejected by the 1st respondent in their communication dated 24.12.1993 on the same reason. It is to be noted that the petitioner has not challenged the above orders of rejection made by the 1st respondent and allowed those orders to stand. However, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to accept the nomination of the respective General Managers in the respective mine manufacturing units at Sankarnagar and Sankaridurg as owners for the purpose of Section 76 of the Mines Act 1952. In view of my above discussions that nomination of the managers as owners shall be from only among anyone of the Directors of the company, rejection of the request of the petitioner to nominate its General Managers as owners for the purpose of Section 76 of the Act is well founded. For the said reason, I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General entitling the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to accept the nomination of the General Managers as owners of the mines at Sankarnagar and Sankaridurg for the purpose of Section 76 of the Mines Act 1952. In view of the said finding, the direction sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. Accordingly, the writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P. is also dismissed.