# • J(undan Sugar Mills v. Ziyauddin

- **Citation:** [1960] 2 S.C.R. 926
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1960
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/j-undan-sugar-mills-v-ziyauddin-1806
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

•
J(undan Sugar
Mills
v.
Ziyauddin
Subba Rao J.
February, 9
926
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960 (2)]
a substantial question of law arose in the case and
that it was 1voll within the powers of the Labour
Appellate Tribunal to entertain the appeal.
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with
costs.
Appeal dismissed.
S.S. LIGHT RAIL\VAY CO., LTD.
v.
UPPERDOAB SUGAR MILLS LTD. & ANOTHER
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SuBBA RAo and
K. c. DAS GUPTA, JJ).
Railway Rates-Terminal charges fi~ed by Government-When
leviable-Railway Rates Tribunal-Jurisdiction of-Indian Railways
Act, I890 (IX of I890). SS, 3 (I4) 32 and 4I.
In pursuance of s. 32 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 (IX
of 1890), the Central Government had by means of a notification,
fixed certain rates of terminal charges for loading and unloading
goods carried from one station to another by Railway. Inspite
of this notification the appellant Railway Company did not levy
any terminal charges in accordance with those rates up to a
certain point of time and continued to charge at a rate which \Vas
- then prevalent and in \vhich no terminal charges \Vere included.
Subsequently, however, the Railway Company issued a Local
Rates Advice by which terminal charges were added to the prevalent rates with the result that the total charges payable to the
Railway by the respondent mills rose considerably. It was for
relief against this increase that the mills made a complaint under
s. 41 (r) (i) of the Indian Railways Act to Railway Rates Tribunal.
The contention of the Railway Company, inter alia, was that as
in increasing the charges the .Administration had merely applied
standardised terminal charges as notified by the Central Government no complaint could be made in respect thereof under s. 41
(r) (i).
The Tribunal by a majority held that this was not a case
ot application ot a standardised terminal charge and so it had
jurisdiction to consider the question, and they ordered a reduction of terminal charges from the total charges. On appeal by
the Railway,
Held, that the Railway Rates Tribunal had no jurisdiction
either to investigate the reasonableness or otherwise of terminal
charges levied by
the
Railway or to reduce the same.
The charges sought to be levied by the Railway Administration were " terminal charges" within the meaning of the
-
I-
•
....
-
....
.(
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
927
Railways Act, and the proposed levy being in accordance -with
r960
the Government notification under s. 32 of the Act was nothing
more than the application of standardised terminal charges.
S. s. Light
Irrespective of the fact of the actual user by any particular Railway Co. Ltd.
consignor of the stations, sidings and other things mentioned in
v.
s. 3 (14) of the Railways Act, " terminal charges" were leviable Upper Doab Sugar
by reason of the mere fact that these things had been provided
Mills Ltd.
for by the Railway Administration.
Hall & Co. v. London Brighton and South Coast Railway, Co.,
(I885) IS Q. B. D. 505, considered.
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION:
Civil Appeal No.
347of1955.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
order dated April 20, 1955, of the Railway Rates
Tribunal, Madras, in Complaint No. 2of1954.
H. N. Sany<;tl Additional Solicitor General of India,
Niren De. P. C. Chatterjee and P. K. Ghosh, for the
appellant.
N. C. Chatterjee, J.P. Aggarwalla, B. K. B. Naidu
and I. N. Shroff, for respondent No. 1.
B. K. Khanna and R. H. Dhebar, for respondent
No.2.
1960. February 9.
Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
DAS GUPTA, J.-When total char:ges payable in resDas Gupta J.
pect of goods traffic carried by a Railway are increased
by the Railway Administration on the basis of
terminals fixed by the Central Government in pursuance of s. 32 of the Indian Railways Act, has the
Railway Rates Tribunal jurisdiction to investigate the
reasonableness of the charge as thus increased ? That
is the question raised in this appeal. The first
respondent, the Upper Doab Sugar Mills Ltd., manufact

## Text

•
J(undan Sugar
Mills
v.
Ziyauddin
Subba Rao J.
February, 9
926
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960 (2)]
a substantial question of law arose in the case and
that it was 1voll within the powers of the Labour
Appellate Tribunal to entertain the appeal.
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with
costs.
Appeal dismissed.
S.S. LIGHT RAIL\VAY CO., LTD.
v.
UPPERDOAB SUGAR MILLS LTD. & ANOTHER
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SuBBA RAo and
K. c. DAS GUPTA, JJ).
Railway Rates-Terminal charges fi~ed by Government-When
leviable-Railway Rates Tribunal-Jurisdiction of-Indian Railways
Act, I890 (IX of I890). SS, 3 (I4) 32 and 4I.
In pursuance of s. 32 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 (IX
of 1890), the Central Government had by means of a notification,
fixed certain rates of terminal charges for loading and unloading
goods carried from one station to another by Railway. Inspite
of this notification the appellant Railway Company did not levy
any terminal charges in accordance with those rates up to a
certain point of time and continued to charge at a rate which \Vas
- then prevalent and in \vhich no terminal charges \Vere included.
Subsequently, however, the Railway Company issued a Local
Rates Advice by which terminal charges were added to the prevalent rates with the result that the total charges payable to the
Railway by the respondent mills rose considerably. It was for
relief against this increase that the mills made a complaint under
s. 41 (r) (i) of the Indian Railways Act to Railway Rates Tribunal.
The contention of the Railway Company, inter alia, was that as
in increasing the charges the .Administration had merely applied
standardised terminal charges as notified by the Central Government no complaint could be made in respect thereof under s. 41
(r) (i).
The Tribunal by a majority held that this was not a case
ot application ot a standardised terminal charge and so it had
jurisdiction to consider the question, and they ordered a reduction of terminal charges from the total charges. On appeal by
the Railway,
Held, that the Railway Rates Tribunal had no jurisdiction
either to investigate the reasonableness or otherwise of terminal
charges levied by
the
Railway or to reduce the same.
The charges sought to be levied by the Railway Administration were " terminal charges" within the meaning of the
-
I-
•
....
-
....
.(
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
927
Railways Act, and the proposed levy being in accordance -with
r960
the Government notification under s. 32 of the Act was nothing
more than the application of standardised terminal charges.
S. s. Light
Irrespective of the fact of the actual user by any particular Railway Co. Ltd.
consignor of the stations, sidings and other things mentioned in
v.
s. 3 (14) of the Railways Act, " terminal charges" were leviable Upper Doab Sugar
by reason of the mere fact that these things had been provided
Mills Ltd.
for by the Railway Administration.
Hall & Co. v. London Brighton and South Coast Railway, Co.,
(I885) IS Q. B. D. 505, considered.
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION:
Civil Appeal No.
347of1955.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
order dated April 20, 1955, of the Railway Rates
Tribunal, Madras, in Complaint No. 2of1954.
H. N. Sany<;tl Additional Solicitor General of India,
Niren De. P. C. Chatterjee and P. K. Ghosh, for the
appellant.
N. C. Chatterjee, J.P. Aggarwalla, B. K. B. Naidu
and I. N. Shroff, for respondent No. 1.
B. K. Khanna and R. H. Dhebar, for respondent
No.2.
1960. February 9.
Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
DAS GUPTA, J.-When total char:ges payable in resDas Gupta J.
pect of goods traffic carried by a Railway are increased
by the Railway Administration on the basis of
terminals fixed by the Central Government in pursuance of s. 32 of the Indian Railways Act, has the
Railway Rates Tribunal jurisdiction to investigate the
reasonableness of the charge as thus increased ? That
is the question raised in this appeal. The first
respondent, the Upper Doab Sugar Mills Ltd., manufactures sugar in its Mills situated at Shamli. The
sugarcane needed as its raw material has to be brought
by the Company from different places in the neighbourhood. It is in this connection that the appellantRailway Company's services are required.
The
Railway Company carries the sugarcane in trucks
from several stations on its line, to Shamli. As the
Mills premises are situated a short distance away from
the station platform the Mills had at the very time
when it started functioning, a siding agreement with
the Rly., Company so that the trucks carrying the
us
•
•
928
SUPREME COURT REPORTS Ll960 (2)]
z960
sugarcane are ultimately brought into the Mills siding
.
from where the unloading takes place. The nearest
s. s. Light
point of the Mills siding from the station platform at
Railway Co. Lid. Shamli is about 100 to 150 ft. away. The Rly. locoupper n:~b sugar motives bring the sugarcane trucks to this point-pt.
Miu, Ltd.
A in the Plan-after which the Mills makes its own
arrangement for taking them inside the sidings. After
Da; Gupta J.
several increases from time to time which it is not
necessary to mention, the charges payable in respect
of sugarcane carried in the Railway Company's trucks
and brought by the Railway Company's locomotives
up to the point A stood on September 30, 1953, at the
following figures :-
Rs.
Ans.
Ps.
From
Ail um
3
8
Kandhla
3
8
Khandraoli
3
8
Hind
3
8
Thanabhawan
3
8
Nanautta·
4
·!
Sona Arjunpur 4
4
In each case a surcharge of annas 2 per rupee was
added.
Before this, however, on February 20, 1950, the
Central Govt., had made an order under s. 32 of the
Indian Railways Act, the relevant portion of which is
in these words:-
" In pursuance of section 32 of the Indian Rlys.
Act, 1890 (IX of 1890) the Central Government is
pleased to fix the following rates of terminals, transhipment, short distance, percentage on value and
percent[tge on excess value charges, namely :-
1.
TERMINAL CHARGES.
(a) Goods Traffic
(i) General Merchandise
Eight pies per maund at each end where the
railway is required to do loading and unloading.
Six pies per maund at each end, where the
owners of the goods are required to do loading
and unloading ...... ".
·
-
1
-
-
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
929
In §lpite of this however the Railway Company did
I960
not levy any terminal charges in accordance with
s. s. Light
this rate up to September, 1953 and continued to Railway co. Ltd.
charge at the rate mentioned above.
v.
On August 1, 1953 the Railway Company issued a upper Doab'Sugar
Local Rate Advice the relevant portion of which was
Mills Ltd.
in these ternis :-
"With effect from 1-10-53 the following station to
station rates will be introduced and will remain in
force till further advice :-
Commodity From
To
Rate
Sugarcane Ailuin
Shamli
Rs. 2·6 'plus terminal Rs. 9.6
Khandla
do
2·6
do
Khandraoli
do
1·12
do
Hind
do
r12
do
Thanabhawan do
3·2
do
Harar Siding do
3·2
do
Nanautta
do
3·15
do
Sona Arjunpur do
4·n
do
The consequence of this was that with effect from
October 1953 the total charges payable by the Mills
rose considerably. From Rs. 3·8 formerly payable
in respect of sugarcane carried from Ailum, Khandla,
Khandraoli, Hind,
Thanabhawan, the rate now
payable became Rs. U · 12, Rs. U · 12, Rs. U ·2, Rs. U ·2
and Rs. 12·8 respectively while for sugarcane carried
from Nanautta and Sona Arjunpur, the amount now
payable was Rs. 13'5 and Rs. 14·1 in place of Rs. 4·4
and Rs. 4·4 payable prior to October 1, 1953. It was
for relief against this increase that the Mills made
a complaint under s. 41(1) (i) of the Indian Railways
Act to the Railway Rates Tribunal. Relief in respect
of certain other matters like rates on molasses,
increase in siding charges, rates on coal, gunnies, limestone, firewood etc., and rates on sugar was also asked
for; but later all these prayers having been withdrawn
at the hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal bad
to deal only with the Mills' complaint as regards this
increase in charges in respect of sugarcane.
The main contention raised on behalf of the Railway
Company was that as in increasing the charges
the Administration had merely applied standardized
terminal charges no complaint lay in respect of the
Das Gupta J.
•
•
•
930
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960 (2)]
z96o
same under section 4l(l)(i). The Railway Company
5
L. h
also further contended in this connection that conRoil~:; ~:. ~td. siderable services, apart from the carriage of the goods,
v.
were rendered by the Company at each end and so,
upper Doab Sugar in any case, the terminal charges as standardized by
Mills Ltd.
notification by the Central Governmen~ were legally
levied. The Tribunal by a majority held that this
Das Gupta ].
f
l"
·
f
d d
d
was not a case o
app 1cat10n o
a stan ar ize
terminal charge and so it had jurisdiction to consider
the question. Shri L.M. Roy and Shri V. Subrahmanyan
who formed the majority were of opinion that services
were rendered only at the loading station, and not at
Shamli; so only Rs. 4· 11 annas out of the terminal
charge of Rs. 9·6 was reasonable and only this amount
could be levied on sugarcane in addition to the conveyan<Je charges from the forwarding station. They
ordered a reduction of terminal charge from Rs. 9·6 to
Hs. 4·11.
The President of the Tribunal Mr. Lokur,
forming the minority, was of opinion that the Tribunal
had no jurisdiction to consider the question of reasonableness. He was also of opinion that terminal services
were rendered by the respondent Railways both at the
loading station and also after the carriage was complete at Shamli.
In our opinion, the Tribunal (by which we mean the
majority of the Tribunal) was wrong in thinking that
this was not a case of standardized terminal charges.
The first argument which seems 1.o have found favour
with the majority and which was repeated here on
behalf of the respondent was that while the Government Notification fixed a terminal cha.rge of 6 pies per
maund at each end, where loading and unloading is
done by the owner, as -in the present case, the Railway
Company fixed Rs. 9·6 per 4 wheeler as the terminal
charge for the two ends together irrespective of the
maundage carried. It is obvious that the charge of
R.s. 9.6 is equivalent to charge of one anna, the total
of 6 pies at each end, per maund on 11"0 mds. It is
urged that it may very well happen that some trucks
will carry more than 150 mds. and some less.
The
fixation of such a lump sum of Rs. 9·6 is, it is contended, not an application of the charges fixed by the
Government, but quite a distinct arrangement. In
-
( ..
I·
-
-
..
T
-
-
-<
S.C.R,
SUPREME COUHT REPORTS
931
our opinion there is no substance. in this contention. It
r960
does not appear to be disputed that on an average 200
5 5 L. ht
rods. are carried in each 4 wheeler truck. Exhibit A-6 Rail~~.; d:. Ltd.
shows a number of bills for charges for the period
v.
February, 1953 to F8bruary 10, 1953, for sugarcane upper Doab Sugar
carried from these stations to Shamli. 'I'he number
Mills Ltd.
of trucks for each consignment is mentioned as also the Das Gupta 1.
weight carried. In each case we find 200 mds. mentioned as the weight. It is obvious and indeed
undisputed that this statement of 200 rods. as
the
weight is
not made on actual weighment
but is mentioned on the weight carried on the basis of
capacity. As regards the rate for carriage, it is common
ground that charge is made per truck and not according to maunclage. It also appears to be common
ground that this charge is actually calculated on the
basis of 150 rods. per truck.
We are unable to agree
that when the Central Government fixed the charge
at so much per round it was intended that before any
such charge could be levied the actual weight should
be ascertained by actual weighment. There is nothing
to prevent the Railway Company and the consignor
from entering into an agreement as to what should be
accepted as weight without actual weighment. Once such
a fixation is agreed upon, the amount calculated on that
figure at the rate fixed by Government must be deemed
to be the amount properly payable in accordance
with the rate fixed by Government. The fact that in
some cases less than 150 rods. may be carried in a
truck and in other cases more. than 150 .mds. may be
carried does not affect the position that the party who
is to pay and the party who is entitled to payment
have accepted a particular figure as the weight carried,
without actual weighment. When therefore Rs. 9·6
is sought to be levied as the terminal charge being
equivalent to 6 pice per maund on 150 rods. at each
end, it .is really an application of the charge fixed by
the Central Government.
Nor are we impressed with the argument that the
words used in the Local Ra.te Advice of August 1,
1953, which has been set out above show that a
standardized terminal charge was not being levied
but some other rate is sought to be levied. It is no
•
•
932
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(2)]
.z960
doubt true that this Advice quotes "station to station
s. s. Light
rate" -the amount being then mentioned in two
Railway Co. Ltd. parts, one obviously the rate for carriage, and the
v.
second the terminal charge. In fact the words "plus
Uppe~;a~ ~ugar terminal charge ,,- are actually mentioned. The Rail-
' '
1
•
way Act has made a clear distinction between the rate
Das Gupta J.
and terminal charge. The word "rate " is defined in
s. 3(13) as including "any fare, charge or other J?ayment for the carriage of any passenger, animals or
goods; the word "terminals" is defined in clause 14 of
the same section· as including " charges in respect of
stations, sidings, wharves, depots, .warehouses, cranes
and other similar matters, and of any services, rendered thereat."The word "station to station rate" is defined
ins. 460 (g) as meaning" a special reduced rate applicable to a specific commodity booked between two
specified stations." The same section also defines
"class rate" and " schedule rate." .The first being
defined as " rate fixed according to the class given to
a commodity in the classification of goods and the
second as " the rate lower than the maximum or class
rate applied on a commodity basis." We can see no
reason for not interpreting the word "rate " used in
this section, (460), as being "any fare charges or other
payment for the carriage of any passenger, animals or
goods " as defined in s. 3(13).
Thus interpreted
"station to station rate" in respect of goods will mean
only a charge payable for carriage of goods as may be
made specially applicable to a specific commodity
booked between two specified stations for the carriage
of the same. This would not include any charge made
in addition to the charge for carriage. It must therefore be held that the words of the Local Advice Order
stating the new station to station rate as so much
plus "so much for terminal charge" are not strictly
accurate. The proper way of giving information to
parties concerned would be to state the station to
station rate as consisting of the amount mentioned in
the first party only-the charge for carriage-and to
make a separate announcement as regards terminal
charge. This inaccuracy in expression cannot however
affect the substance of the matter. The fact that the
terminal charge was mentioned as a part of the station
'
•
-
--
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
933
to station rate is no reason to think that standardized
I960
terminal charges were not being applied.
s. s. Light
More important is the argument that the Central GovRailway co Ltd.
ernment Notification fixing 6 pies per maund as the
v.
terminal charge at each end, where loading and upper Doab Sugar
unloading is done by the owner, should be interpreted
Mills Ltd.
as permitting the levy of such charges only if some
Das Gupta J.
service in addition to the carriage is being performed.
This argument is based on a view of the definition of
the word "terminals" in s. 3(14) that " terminals"
means charges for certain services rendered. Acceptance of that view will undoubtedly justify a conclusion
that in fixing "terminals" the Central Government
only authorized the charges to be levied, on certain
services in addition to carriage having been rendered.
If thereafter it is found that no such services were
rendered the conclusion that will follow is that levying of a charge at the end where no such services were
rendered was not levying of a "standardized terminal
charge."
Assuming for the present, that on a proper interpretation of the definition of the word "terminals",
no terminal charge can be made unless some service
in addition to the carriage of the goods is rendered, it
is necessary to see whether the conclusion of two
members of the Tribunal who formed the majority was
correct in so far as they held that no such service was
performed at the Shamli end. It is important to bear
in mind that in so far as such a conclusion is a pure
finding of fact this Court will not ordinarily interfere
therewith. If however the conclusion is apparently
vitiated by an error of law it becomes proper and
desirable for this Court to consider what the correct
finding would be on a correct appreciation of law.
Both Shri L.M. Roy and Shri Subrahmanian proceeded on the basis that " the loaded cane specials are
taken to point A in the map and then pushed inside,
leaving them at the assisted siding. It is here that the
~onveyance ends and the terminal begins. Whatever
services are rendered thereafter would be as carriers
and are subject to separate charges in the form of
terminals." The distinction between "conveyance"
and duty as a "carrier" was made in many of the
•
•
934
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(2)]
r96o
English Railway Acts so that in many cases before
the courts in England, the judges had to consider
S.S. Light
Railway co. Lid. where the conveyance ends and the carrier's duty
v.
begins.· These decisions arc necessarily coloured by
UPP" Doab Sugar the historical considerations in England whore at first
Mill' Lid.
railway companies supplied only milway lines, where
private carriers could take their locomotives on payDas Gupta].
ment of a charge for the line and at a later stage the
Railway Company supplied locomotives and power
and the railway line but the private carrier remained
there undertaking carriage, till ultimately the third
stage was roached when the railway company functioned also as carriers on the line.
\Vhile some
assistance can no doubt be derived from the learned
discussions by English judges as to where conveyance
ends and the carrier's duty begins, it would be more
helpful to concentrate at first on the scheme of our
own legislation.
Turning to the Indian Railways Act, it is clear that
carriage on the Railway line is primarily a function of
the Railway Company and for such carriage charges
are made. The Act further contemplates that in
addition to some charge having been made for carriage
certain other charges can be made under the head
"terminals". In such a scheme the proper approach
to a decision of the question where carriage ends.is to
find out what carriage has been charged for. If what is
charged is the charge for carriage up to the i,,tation
platform of the destination station, anything done to
assist the party after carriage is complete is a service
in addition to carriage, that is, a terminal service. If
the point A in the map is the distance up to which
carriage is charged the view of the majority of the
Tribunal that no ndditional service is being rendered
by the Railway Company in bringing the trucks from
the station platform up to point A is correct. If on
the other hand, the carriage which is charged for is .
carriage up to the station platform of Shamli only,
bringing the trucks from the station platform to point
A where the sidings begin is clearly a terminal service.
The majority of the Tribunal failed to appreciate this
distinction and erred in law in·assuming that because
the siding commenced at A shunting of trucks from
J
{
-
'
•
-
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS
935
the station platform to A could not be a terminal
z96o
service.
s s Light
The important question therefore is as regards the Rail~a~ co. Ltd.
point up to .which the carriage was being charged for.
v.
It is necessary to consider in this connection els. 13 & Upper Doab Sugar
15 of the siding agreement. They are in these words:-
Mills Ltd.
"Clause 13: Freight for all clauses of goods will
Das Gupta].
be charged up to and from Shamli station. Railway
receipts and invoices shall be issued to and from
the station only and in accordance with the rates
-from time to time published in Goods Traffic Books
of the Railway Administration. In addition to
such freight, the Railway Administration will make
the following charges in such directions for every
wagon loaded or empty, placed in or removed from
the lines A and B mentioned in clause 15 below :-
(1) per 4-wheeler wagon 0-3-4
(2) per 8-wheeler wagon 0-6-8
In addition when use of an engine is made to
place or remove wagon from the siding, a charge of
Rs. 5 for each transaction shall be levied by
Administration.
Clause 5: (a) Wagons will be made over to the
Firm and returned by the Firm in the form of
certificate shown in Annexure A.
(b) Wagons will be handled by the Railway to
and from the lines marked A and Bin Plan No.12-A
hereinbefore referred t<'> or such other point or
length as may hereafter be fixed upon by mutual
consent of the Firm and the Railway Administration in writing.
(c) As soon as wagons are placed at the line "A"
referred, to, the Station Master will fill in columns
1, 2 and 3 of both foils of Annexure A, and obtain
the Firm'ssignature in column 4 of the inner foil and
make over the outer foil to the firm.
When this
has been done, the wagons will be considered as
made over to the Firm and the free time permissible
under the rules will then commence. Similarly,
wagons will be considered as returned to the
Railway by the Firm as soon as they are placed at
the line "B " referred to and the Station Master
has been advised by the Firm".
U9
•
•
S.S. Light
Railway Co. Ltd.
v.
Upper Doab Sitgar
At ills Ltd.
Das Gupta].
936
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960 (2)]
This will de done by presentation of the outer
foil with column filled in.
The Station Master will then initial in column 5
of the outer foil, and fill in columns 5, 6, 7 and 8
of the inner foil and columns 6, 7 and 8 of the
outer foil and recover the demurrago duo.
Note 1. The free time referred to above will be
calculated in accordance with the rules in force
from time to time as published in the Goods
Traffic Books of the Railway Administration und
wagons detained by the Firm over and above such
free time shall be subject to payment of the
demurrage charges laid down in such tariffs.
Note 2. The Firm will arrange to hand shunt
wagons to and from t.he said length " A " with
their own labour and the Railway Administration
will not be responsible for any delay, loss or
damage caused in consequence of the failure of the
Firm to arrange for such hand shunting.
It is important to notice that cl. 13 mentions in
definite and categorical language that freight is
charged up to and from Shamli station. It is reasonable to read the "station" here as the " station
platform ". When in clause 15 it is agreed that the
"wagons will be hauled by the Ra.ii way to and from
the lines marked A and 13" nothing is said about any
charge being made therefor. It is impossible to read
into the words used in cl. 15(b) an implication that
carriage up to point A was being charged for.
On a
proper reading of these clauses we· think it reasonable
to hold that carriage up to the station platform only
was being charged for.
The haula.ge of the trucks
from the station platform to point A was thus
necessarily a service rendered by the Railway
Company in addition to the carriage and so was a
terminal service.
It is clear therefore that even on the assumption
made that on the definition of the terminals in s. 3(14)
no charges are payable unless certain services in
addition to carriage are performed by the Railway
Company, terminals were leviable in the present case
at the Shamli end also and so the foundation for the
argument that Rs. 4.11 being charged at the Shamli
-
)·
,_ .
S.C.R
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
937
end was not really a terminal charge but some other
x960
charge in the garb of terminal disappears.
/
f
itthisEinte
1
~eshtidng ~°:this c
1
~nhnectiontto
1
tur~ to somde Rai~!~ L~!.h~td.
o
e
ng is
e01s10ns w uc seem o iave impresse
v.
the members of the TribuJ!al. In Foster v G. E. upper Doab Sugar
Railway Co. (1), the Court had to consider certain secMills Lta.
tions of the Great Eastern Railway Company (Rates
and Charges) Order Confirmation Act, 1891. Section
Das Gupta J.
2 thereof provided that the m_aximum rate for conveyance is the maximum rate which the company may
charge for the conveyance of -merchandise by
merchandise train; and, subject to the exceptions
and provisions specified in th,e schedule includes the
provisions of locomotive power and trucks by the
company, and every other expense
incidental to
such conveyance not hereinafter provided for. Section
3 provides that the maximum station terminal is the
maximum charge which the company may make to
a trader for the use of the accommodation (exclusive
of coal) provided and for the duties undertaken by
the company for which no other provision is made
in the schedule, at the terminal station for or in
dealing with merchandise, as carriers thereof, before
or after conveyance. Section 5 provides that the
company may charge for the services for the
following, or any of them, when rendered to a trader
at his request or for his convenience, a reasonable
sum, by way of addition to the tonnage rate and
services rendered by the Company, at or in connection
with sidings not belonging to the Company.
It was in connection with this scheme of the law
that the .Court had to consider where conveyance
should be held to end. It was held that conveyance
for the purpose of rates might or might not coincide
with the contractual conveyance but that it could not
be said as matter of law that it did. Theipoint at which
it ended would prima facie be the point at which the
goods train detached and deposited the Trucks, but
if they were so detached and deposited for the
convenience of the railway company at a point short
ofthat to which.as conveyers they would be bound
to take them for the purposes of delivery . to a
(r) (r92<>) K.B, 574.
•
•
•
938
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19~0(2)]
x96o:
distributing carrier in times when such carriers
existed, a charge could not be made for haulage
S. S. Light
b t
· th
. t
Railway Co. Ltd.
eAweehn
ese polrt s.
.
,
v.
.
s
as already been noticed our legrnlature has
upper Doab Sugar thought fit to avoid the use of the word "conveyance"
Mills Ltd.
and has provided for maximum and minimum being
Das Gupta ;. prescribed for rates as defined in s. 3(13), viz., as
charges for " carriage". It is obvious that carriage
which is charged for under the "rates " may include
something in addition to the actual conveyance, viz.,
collection of goods just before haulage starts and
delivery of goods just after haulage ends. It is helpful to see that even in ~he English courts were the
distinction between conveyance and carriage ran
through the whole scheme of legislation in view of the
historical growth of the Railways and the extension
of their functions, services rendered after the point
where the goods train detaches and deposits the trucks
would prima facie be considered a terminal service ;
while if the train which detaches and deposits at a
point short of where they would have been bound to
take for the purposes of delivery to a distributing
carrier in olden days, the haulage between the two
points cannot be charged for in addition to the
conveyance charge. Applying the reasoning underlying this decision to Indian conditions we think it
proper to hold that haulage beyond a point where the
trucks would be taken for persons other than the
owners of a siding would be a terminal service except
where this additional haulage is for the convenience
of the Railway itself or where the rate charged for
carriage covers the entire route up to the la~t point of
haulage.
•
Even if therefore a correct interpretation of the
definition of " terminals " did not permit charges to
be levied where no services were rendered in addition
to the carriage charged for, the levying of Rs. 9·6 as
terminal charges in the present case is clearly the
application'of standardized terminal charges .. As s. 41
in terms excludes standardized terminal charges from
the scope of any complaint thereunder the Railway
Tribunal w0uld have no jurisdiction to investigate
the reasonableness or otherwise of these charges and
-
-{
I'
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
939
the majority decision of the Tribunal must be set
z96o
aside.
5 5 L' ht
We do not propose, however, to rest our decis~on Rail~a; ~;.Ltd.
on this narrow question of haulage from the stat10n
v.
platform to point A, as in our view the assumption upper Doab Sugar
made above as regards the definition of terminals in
Mills Ltd.
s. 3(14) is not justified. The definition as has already
been stated is in these words. "Terminals " includes Das Gupta f.
"charges in respect of stations, sidings, wharves,
depots, warehouses, cranes and other similar matters,
and of any service . rendered thereat." Thus two
classes of charges are included in the definition. The
first is " charges in respect of stations, sidings
•
wharves, depots, warehouses, cranes and other
similar matters." The second is "charges in respect
of any servioes rendered thereat." Whether or not
therefore any servi<les have been rendered" thereat"
that is, at the stations, sidings, wharves, depots,
warehouses, cranes and other similar matters the
other class of terminals in respect of these-stations,
sidings, wharves, depots, warehouses, cranes and
similar other matters remain. A further question
thus arises as regards the interpretation of the phrase
"in respect of". Does it mean charges for the mere
provision and maintenance of stations, sidings,
depots, wharves, warehouses, cranes and other similar
matters are the terminals or does· it contemplate
charges only for use of sidings, stations, wharves,
depots, warehouses, cranes and other similar matters?
The words " in respect of " are wide enough to permit
charges being made as terminals so long as any of
these things, viz., stations, sidings, wharves, depots,
warehouses, cranes and other similar matters have
been provided and are being maintained.
The
question is whether the import of this generality of
language should be cut down for any reason. It is
well-settled that a limited interpretation has to be
made on words used by the legislature in spite of the
generality of the language used where the literal
interpretation in the general sense would be so
unreasonable or absurd that the legislature should be
presumed not to have intended the same. Is there
arty such reasoli for c?tting dowli the result of the
•
•
•
•
940
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(2)]
I960
generality of the language used present here ? The
answer, in our opinion, must be in the negative. It
5 · 5 · Light
is true that in many cases stations, sidings, wharves,
Railway Co. Ltd.
v.
depots, warehouses, cranes and other similar things
upper Doab Sugar will be used and it is arguable that in using the
Mills Ltd.
words " in respect of" the legislature had such user
in mind. It is well to notice however that the legislaDas Gupta f.
ture must have been equally aware that whereas in
some cases accommodation provided by stations will
be used, in some cases sidings will be used, in others
wharves, in other warehouses· and in other cases
cranes, and in certain cases several of these may be
used, in most cases there will be no use of all of these .
From the practical point of view it is impossible to
regulate terminal charges separately in respect of user
of each of these several things mentioned. When
therefore the legislature authorised the Central Govt.,
to fix terminals as defined in- s. 3(14), the intention
must have been that the terminals leviablc would not
depend on how many of these things would be used.
It is also worth noticing that the user of a depot,
warehouse and cranes would necessarily mean some
service rendered " thereat ". If terminals did . not
include charges in respect of the provisions of depots,
warehouses and cranes unless these were used, there
would be no need of including these in the first
portion as they would be covered by the second part
of the definition, viz., "of any services rendered
thereat". Far from being there any reason to cut
down, the consequence of the generality of language
used viz., " in respect of", there is thus good ground
for thinking that the legislature used this language
deliberately to cut across the difficulty of distinguishing in a pa;rticular case as to which of these
things had been used or whether any of them had
been used at all.
Innumerable people carry goods
over the Railways and many of them, for the purpose
of the carriage make use of the stations, sidings,
wharves, depots, warehouses, cranes and other
similar matters, while many do not. Though .at first
sight it might seem unreasonable that those who had
not used would have to pay the same charge as those
who had made use of these,_ it is obvious that the
•
-
'
•
-
_,...
-
-
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS_
941
interminable disputes that would arise between the
z96o
Railway Administration and the Railway users, if the
fact of user of stations, sidings and other things Rag~;; ~!.h~td.
mentioned had to determine the amount payable,
v.
would be unhelpful not only to the Railway Adminis- Upper Doab Suga•
tratiol} but also to the using public. The sensible w~y
Mills Ltd.
was therefore to mn.ke a charge leviable for the mere
Das GitJda J.
provision of thase things irrespective of whether any
use was made thereof. That was the reason why
such wide words " in respect of" was used. We are
therefore of opinion that the words "in respect of"
\lsed in s. 3(14) means "for' the provi.sion of" and
not "for the user of".
It is worth considering in this connection that the
definition of "terminal charges " in the Indian Act is
a verbatim reproduction of the definition appearing
in the English Railway and Canals Traffic Act, 1888
and that only three years before the English
Parliament passed that Act an English Court had
held in Hall & Co. v: London, Brighton and South
Coast Rly., Co. (2), that for the purposes of interpretation of section 51 of the London, Brighton, and South
Coast Rly. Act, 1863 which did not include such a
definition . of . terminal charges, the words " any
service incidental to the dutv or business of a carrier",
does comprise providing su;h station accommodation
and such sidings, and such weighing, checkage and
labelling as is incidental to the duty which they
undertake, of collecting and dealing with the goods
as carriers." It is reasonable to think that the
English Parliament in defining " terminal charges "
in the Railway and Canals Act, 1889 intended to give
effect to this view that provision of station accommodation and sidings entitled the Railway Administration to levy " terminal charges."
When the
Indian Legislature adopted the same definition in its
own Act it is proper to think that it also was aware
of the view taken in Hall's Case (2). This consideration fortifies the conclusion which we have already
reached on an examination of the scheme of our own
Act, apart from authorities, that the words "in
respect of" used in s. 3(14) in the definition of
(2) (1885) 15 K.B. 505.
•
•
•
I960
942
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(2)]
"terminal charges" means "for the provision of"
and not" for the user of".
S. S. Light
Railway Co. Ltd.
The necessary conclusion that follows is that
v.
irrespective of the fact of the actual user by any
Upper Doob Sugar particular consignor of the stations sidings and other
Mills Ltd.
things mentioned in s. 3(14) "term'inal charges" are
Das Gupta 1.
leviable by reason of the mere fact that these 'things
have been provided by the Railway Administration.
The conclusion that necessarily follows therefrom is
that the charges of Rs. 4·11 at either end sought to
be levied by the Railway Administration in addition
to the charges for carriage was " terminal charges"
within the meaning of the Railways Act and the proposed levy being in accordance with Government
Notification under s. 32 of the
0Act was nothing more
than the application of standardized terminal charges.
The Tribunal had therefore no jurisdiction to investigate the reasonableness or otherwise of the same and
had no jurisdiction to reduce the same. The order
made by the majority of the Tribunal cannot therefore be allowed to stand.
Februa,ry. IO
•
The order made by the Tribunal is therefore set
aside. The application made under s. 41 in respect
of this levy of Rs. 9·6 per 4 wheeler truck in addition
to the carriage is rejected. The appeal is allowed
with costs.
Appeal allowed.
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF
NAGPUR
v.
ITS EMPLOYEES
(P. I3. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SUBBA RAO AND
K.C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.)
Industrial Dispute-Services undertaken by City Corporation-If
and when industry-Test-'Inditstry'. Meaning of--Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, r947 (C.P. &
Berar XXIII of r947). s. 2 (r4)-City of Nagpur Corporation Act.
r948 (Madhya Pradesh 2 of Ig50).
The question for determination in these appeals was whether
and to what extent the municipal activities of the Corporation of
'
-
-
-