Judgment P. S. Mishra, J. 1. Petitioner No.1, which is a voluntary association of the small Scale-Bee-Hive Hard Coke Producers Association having its registered office located in the area of Nirsa and Chirkunda and a society registered under the societies Registration Act and petitioner No.2, a company registered under the indian Companies Act, having its registered office at Calcutta, which carries on business of manufacturing hard-coke by bee-hive oven at Nirsa Chowk, have moved this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the orders passed by respondents Nos.2 and 3, as contained in Annexures 3 and 6 and consequently a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from enforcing the provisions of the coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Act, as amended from time to time. 2. According to the petitioners, Bee-hive ovens for manufacturing hard-coke are not covered by the definition of a coal mine under the Act and that respondents 2 and 3 have wrongly extended the provisions thereof to them. According to the respondents it cannot be said that Bee-hive coke oven used for manufacturing hard-coke is not a coke oven as defined in Sec.2 (b) (xii)of the Act and as such a coal mine. 3. There are many facts stated in the writ application and in the counter-affidavit, which do not appear to be of any serious consequence except the statement in paragraph 10 of the writ petition in which the petitioners have said that none of the hard-coke manufacturers own any coal mine or have any coal mining lease or having any capacity to carry the work of coal mine, which fact is not disputed by the respondents. 4. 4. The expression coal mine carried a separate definition in clause (b)in Sec.2 of the Act before the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus schemes (Amendment) Act, 1965 (Act 45 of 1965), and read as follows: - "2 (b) - coal Mine means any excavation where any operation for the purpose of obtaining coal has been or is being carried on, and includes all works, machinery, tramways and sidings, whether above or below ground, in or adjacent to or belonging to a coal mine : provided that it shall not include any part of the coal mine in which a manufacturing process is being carried on unless such process is a process for coke-making or the dressing minerals" The said definition stood amended by Act 45 of 1965 which reads as follows : "2 (b) coal mine means any excavation where any operation for the purpose of searching for or obtaining coal has been or is being carried on and includes - (i) all borings and bore holes ; (ii) all shafts, in or adjacent to and belonging to a coal mine, whether in the course of being sunk or not; (xii) any coke oven or plant ; (xiii) any premises in or adjacent to and belonging to a coal mine on which any plant or other machinery connected with a coal mine is situated or on which any process ancillary to the work of a coal mine is being carried on. " Comparison of the two reveals that the proviso was replaced by clause (xiii) and the main part of the definition, which after the words or is being carried on specified and included in it all works, machinery, tramways and sidings, whether above or below ground, in or adjacent to or belonging to a coal mine was expanded and specified in clauses (i) to (xii) and, thus, after amendment it removed ambiguity which could be found in the words that formed part of the earlier definition. 5. 5. A Division Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v. S. K. "roy, (AIR 1966 S. C.1995 considered a case of a coke plant which on transfer came in the hands of the respondent therein, which plant was originally in the hands of the Bhowra group of collieries, who were engaged in excavating coal, but the respondent got no interest of any kind in other operations of the colliery owners except the plant. The said coke plant was a by-product coke plant, in which hard coke as well as some other by-product were manufactured. coal mine as defined before the amendment was considered by the Supreme court and speaking for the court, Ramaswami, J. said - "as a matter of construction it must be held that all works, machinery, tramways and sidings, whether above or below ground, in or adjacent to a coal mine will come within the scope and ambit of the definition only when they belong to the coal mine. In other words, the word or occurring before the expression belonging to a coal mine in the main definition has to be read to mean and. Any other interpretation would lead to an anomalous and startling consequence". Having concluded accordingly, the Supreme Court also considered the amended definition and quoted in the judgment what it found relevant but not clause (xii)thereof and concluded : ". . . . . In our opinion, the change in the language of Sec.2 (b) of the earlier Act brought about by the amending Act (Act 45 of 1965)was not meant to bring about a change of law in this respect but was meant to fix a proper interpretation upon the earlier Act. . . . . " 6. Before proceeding further, it may be stated that several Bee-hive oven owners were manufacturing coal who came to this Court in C. W. J. C. No, 550/85 (R) and other analogous cases, when they were asked by the slate of Bihar to take licence as dealears in coal, as provided in the bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order 1985. They raised a plea that their plants were colliery and they were colliery owners within the meaning of Colliery Control Order read with Mines Act, 1952 and that the Colliery control Order was applicable to them and not the Bihar Orders. They raised a plea that their plants were colliery and they were colliery owners within the meaning of Colliery Control Order read with Mines Act, 1952 and that the Colliery control Order was applicable to them and not the Bihar Orders. To the said assertion by them, there was no counter-affidavit either by the Union of India and its various Departments or the State of Bihar and its various Departments and a Division Bench of the Court, there being no dispute to the said fact, concluded, vide judgmenr dated 11-7-1986, that the Colliery Control Order was applicable to them as plants for producing coal were collieries and they were owners of mines. 7. Clause (2) of Sec.2 of the Colliery Control Order, 1945 has defined colliery as extracted - "2 (2) colliery means any mine or open working where the getting of coal is the principal object of the mining, quarrying or other operations carried on therein and includes a plant for the production of coke or for the washing of coal. " 8. At the first impulse one may find inconsistency in the stands of the petitioner with the stand taken by some of them in C. W. J. C. No.550/85 (R)and other analogous cases, but on a closer examination of the definitions of colliery and coal mine in the Colliery Control Order and the Coal Mines provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948, one may not easily close the matter. colliery as defined in the Control Order may have an extended meaning than a coal mine as defined in the Act. There was no examination of the issue, whether colliery as defined in the Control Order is the same as a coal mine defined in the Act or not in the judgment of this court in C. W. J. C. No.550/85 (R) and other analogous cases. Since the petitioners therein asserted that they were colliery owners raised no dispute as to the question herein, whether Court ovens come within the definition of a coal mine on not. For the purpose of the case before me it is enough to say that even if they claim that they were colliery owners, it cannot be said conclusively that they owned coal mines, unless it is found that their ovens satisfy for the reasons of the operations carried on by them the definition of a coal mine. 9. Mr. For the purpose of the case before me it is enough to say that even if they claim that they were colliery owners, it cannot be said conclusively that they owned coal mines, unless it is found that their ovens satisfy for the reasons of the operations carried on by them the definition of a coal mine. 9. Mr. Giri, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India has contended that the amended definition without any ambiguity has included any coke oven or plant in the definition of coal mine. This has been done for the benefit of the workers in coal, mines, coke ovens or plants etc. , whether owned by Government or private sector, because workers engaged in the activities and the operations of the coal mines, including coke ovens and plants, suffer great hazards to health and rist their lives. He has submitted that workers of other categories are also covered by various schemes and Acts providing for the provident fund, but some special provisions have been made in the Act for such workers only, who are engaged in the operations connected with the coal mines. He has submitted that a welfare legislation should invariably be given an extended meaning for its operation and not a restricted meaning which may inhibit its object. He has for the said purpose referred to some of the authorities who express unequivocally that courts should give full play to the words used in the legislation, so that the object is achieved and should refrain from giving a limited meaning lest the object may not be defeated. 10. One cannot, however, fail to notice that various clauses in the amended definition of a coal mine in the Act are included where any operation for the purpose of searching for or obtaining coal has been or is being carried on, but the operation therefor is controlled by the word excavation. Sec.2 (b) (i)not read in the context of any operation for the purpose of searching for or obtaining coal controlled by the word excavation will mean borings and bore holes for the purposes other than searching for or obtaining coal and shall also be covered by the definition coal mine. Sec.2 (b) (i)not read in the context of any operation for the purpose of searching for or obtaining coal controlled by the word excavation will mean borings and bore holes for the purposes other than searching for or obtaining coal and shall also be covered by the definition coal mine. That cannot obviously be the intention of the legislature, and reading the expression all borings and bore holes limited to the operation for the purpose of searching for or obtaining coal shall in no way inhibit the object of the Act, Some words in the judgment of the supreme Court in the case of the State of Bihar V/s. S. K. Roy (supra) indicate, that are relevant, of course, used in the context of the definition as it stood before the amendment. The Supreme Court has said - ". . . . . Any works, machinery, tramways and sidings which do not appertain to the coal mine in the sense of ownership cannot come within the meaning of the expression coal mine as given in the first part of Cl. (b) of Sec.2 of the Act. They would come by way of subsidiary works, machinery or the like if they appertain to and belong to the coal mine in the sense of carrying on excavation work by doing the operation for the purpose of obtaining coal. Suppose, for example, in a coal field area, the lessee from the Government is working a mine, but the tramways and sidings have been set up by a railway company only for the purpose of transport of coal. It cannot be imagined that the owner of the tramways or railway siding is the owner of the coal mine within the meaning of the act, for the legislature could not have intended that the work of transport of coal will, in itself, constitute the working of a coal mine within the meaning of the Act. . . . . . . " If the object be as indicated by the Supreme Court, any coke oven or plant in clause (xii) of Sec.2 (b) unless it is in some way connected with excavation where any operation for the purpose of searching for or obtaining coal has been or is being carried on, cannot become a coal mine. . . . . . " If the object be as indicated by the Supreme Court, any coke oven or plant in clause (xii) of Sec.2 (b) unless it is in some way connected with excavation where any operation for the purpose of searching for or obtaining coal has been or is being carried on, cannot become a coal mine. 11 Since it is admitted that the petitioners do not have any excavation where any operation for the purpose or searching for or obtaining coal has been or is being carried on, they do not have any coal mine. Even though they are engaged manufacturing hard coal in their bee-hive ovens, they are not owners of coal mines. 12. The orders contained in Annexures 3 and 6 for the said reason are without any authority of law and accordingly are without jurisdiction. 13. In the result, the application is allowed. The orders contained in annexures 3 and 6 are quashed. The respondents are restrained from extending the application of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous provisions Act to the bee-hive ovens of the petitioners. Let a writ in the nature of certiorari and consequential mandamus issue. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.