Mining pension granted only if underground work was continuous and full-time, not mixed surface/underground.

The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's cassation appeal regarding his claim for an age-independent mining pension. The applicant argued that his work as a mine signalman, performed mostly underground, qualified as continuous underground mining work. However, the court found that the signalman's duties involved a 30% portion performed above ground, making the work mixed rather than exclusively underground. Consequently, the statutory requirement for continuous and full-time underground work was not met.