# Kent v. Astley, L.R. (1869) 5 Q. B. 19, Redgrave v. Lee

- **Citation:** [1961] 3 S.C.R. 592
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1960-10-12
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1956
- **Bench:** Jafeb Imam, J. L. Kapur, K. c. DAS GUPTA, Raghubar Dayal, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/kent-v-astley-l-r-1869-5-q-b-19-redgrave-v-lee-2054
- **Pages:** 18

## Headnote

Factory-Sall Works, whether a factory-Premises, if include
open land-Manufacturing process-Conversion of sea water into
salt-Factories Act, z948 (LXIII of I948), ss. 2(k) and (m), 92.
The appellant was convicted of an offence under s. 92 of
the Factories Act, 1948, for working a salt works without obtaining a licence. The salt works extended over an area of about
250 acres. The only buildings on this land were temporary
shelters for the resident labour and for an office; at some places
there were pucca platforms for fixing the water pump wh•ll
I
•
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COUHT REPORTS
593
required to pump water from the sea. The appellant contend·
I96r
ed (i) that the salt works was not a factory as defined ins. 2(m)
of the Act, (ii) that the word "premises" in the definition of
A•deshi•
factory did not include open land, and (iii) that in converting H. 8hiwandiwala
sea water into salt the appellant was not carrying on any manuv.
facturing process as defined in s. 2(k).
State of Bombay
Held, that the salt works was a factory within the definition
given in the Act and that the appellant was rightly convicted
for working it without a licence. The word " premises" is a
generic term meaning open land or land with buildings or buildings alone; the salt works came within the expression "premises"
in the definition of the word " factory ". The extraction of salt
from sea water was not due merely to natural forces but was due
to human efforts aided by natural forces. The process of conversion of sea water into salt was a "manufacturing process " as
defined in. cl. (k) of s. 2, inasmuch as salt was manufactured from
sea water by a process of treatment and adaptation. By this
process sea \.vater, a non.commercial article, was Cv .... verted into
a different thing salt, a commercial article.
Kent v. Astley, L.R. (1869) 5 Q. B. 19, Redgrave v. Lee,
(1874) 9 Q. B. 363 and Nash v. Hollinshead, [rgor] r K.B. 700,
distinguished.
Sedgwick v. Watney, Combe, Reid & Co. Ltd. [1931] A.C. 446,
Grove v. Lloyds British Testing Co. Ltd. [1931] A.C. 466, Kaye v.
Burrows & Ors. and Hines v. Eastern Counties Farmers' Co-operative Association Ltd. [1931] A.C. 477, The State of Kerala v. V. M.
Patel, Cr. App. No. 42 of 1959, decided on 12-10-1960, In re:
Chinniah, Manager, Sangu Soap Works, A.LR. 1957 Mad. 755,
Paterson v. H11nt (1909) IOI L.T.R. 571, Law v. Graham, [1901] 2
K.B. 327, Ho.ue v. Truman, Hanbury, Buxton & Co. (1902) 86
L.T.R. 417, and JicNicol v. Pinch, [1906] 2 K.B. 352, referred to.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Criminal
Appeal No. 32 of 1956.
Appeal from the judgment a.nd order dated October 7 and 10, 1955, of the Bombay High Court in
Criminal Appeal No. 817of1955.
Porus A. Mehta, R. Ganapathy Iyer and G. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant.
N. S. Bindra, R.H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, for the
respondent .
1961. January 27. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.-This is an appeal by specia1Raghuba, Dayal
leave by Ardeshir H. Bhiwandiwala against the order
of the High Court of Bombay allowing an appeal
594
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961]
z96z
by the State against the acquittal of the appellant
A deshir
of an offence under s. 92 of the Factories Act, 1948
n. Bh;wandiwala (Act LXIII of 1948), hereinafter called the Act,
v.
for his working the Wadia Mahal Salt Works situate
State of Bombay at Wada!&, Bombay,· without obtaining a licence
R h -
under s. 6 of the said Act read with r. 4 of the rules
ag ubar Dayal J. framed under the Act.
The main question for determination in this appeal
is whether these Salt Works come within the definition of the word " factory " under cl. (m) of s. 2 of the
Act. The answer to this question depends on the
meaning of the word " premises " in the definition of
the word "factory "and on the determination whether
what is done at this Sa.It Works in connection with
the conversion of sea water into crystals of salt comes
within the definition of the expriission " manufacturing process" in cl. (k) of s. 2 o

## Text

592
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961]
x96x
taking a torch with him, access to the house of the
5
1
deceased being obtained by stealth by scaling over a
Madh;:'•;.adesh wall. Then again, there was the mood of exaltation
v.
which the accused exhibited after he had put her out
Ahmadullah
of her life. It was a crime committed not in a sudden
mood of insanity but one that was preceded by careful
Ayyangar f.
planning and exhibiting cool calculation in execution
and directed against a person who was considered to
be the enemy.
]anua,.y a7.
The appeal is therefore allowed, the order of acquittal passed against the respondent set aside and in its
place will be substituted a finding that the respondent
is guilty of mQJ.'der under s. 302 of the Indian Penal
Code. In the normal course the proper punishment
for the heinous and premeditated crime committed
with inhuman brutality would have been a sentence
of dee.th. But ta.king into account the fact that the
accused ha.a been acquitted by the Sessions Judgea.n order which has been affirmed by the High Courtwe consider that the ends of justice would be met if
we sentence the accused to rigorous imprisonment for
life. It is needless to add that the State Government
will take steps to have the accused treated in a.n
asylum until he is cured of his illness, if this still
continues.
Appeal allowed.
ARDESHIR H. BHIW ANDIWALA
ti.
THE STATE OF BOMBAY.
(JAFEB IMAM, J. L. KAPUR, K. c. DAS GUPTA,
RAGHUBAR DAYAL and
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.)
Factory-Sall Works, whether a factory-Premises, if include
open land-Manufacturing process-Conversion of sea water into
salt-Factories Act, z948 (LXIII of I948), ss. 2(k) and (m), 92.
The appellant was convicted of an offence under s. 92 of
the Factories Act, 1948, for working a salt works without obtaining a licence. The salt works extended over an area of about
250 acres. The only buildings on this land were temporary
shelters for the resident labour and for an office; at some places
there were pucca platforms for fixing the water pump wh•ll
I
•
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COUHT REPORTS
593
required to pump water from the sea. The appellant contend·
I96r
ed (i) that the salt works was not a factory as defined ins. 2(m)
of the Act, (ii) that the word "premises" in the definition of
A•deshi•
factory did not include open land, and (iii) that in converting H. 8hiwandiwala
sea water into salt the appellant was not carrying on any manuv.
facturing process as defined in s. 2(k).
State of Bombay
Held, that the salt works was a factory within the definition
given in the Act and that the appellant was rightly convicted
for working it without a licence. The word " premises" is a
generic term meaning open land or land with buildings or buildings alone; the salt works came within the expression "premises"
in the definition of the word " factory ". The extraction of salt
from sea water was not due merely to natural forces but was due
to human efforts aided by natural forces. The process of conversion of sea water into salt was a "manufacturing process " as
defined in. cl. (k) of s. 2, inasmuch as salt was manufactured from
sea water by a process of treatment and adaptation. By this
process sea \.vater, a non.commercial article, was Cv .... verted into
a different thing salt, a commercial article.
Kent v. Astley, L.R. (1869) 5 Q. B. 19, Redgrave v. Lee,
(1874) 9 Q. B. 363 and Nash v. Hollinshead, [rgor] r K.B. 700,
distinguished.
Sedgwick v. Watney, Combe, Reid & Co. Ltd. [1931] A.C. 446,
Grove v. Lloyds British Testing Co. Ltd. [1931] A.C. 466, Kaye v.
Burrows & Ors. and Hines v. Eastern Counties Farmers' Co-operative Association Ltd. [1931] A.C. 477, The State of Kerala v. V. M.
Patel, Cr. App. No. 42 of 1959, decided on 12-10-1960, In re:
Chinniah, Manager, Sangu Soap Works, A.LR. 1957 Mad. 755,
Paterson v. H11nt (1909) IOI L.T.R. 571, Law v. Graham, [1901] 2
K.B. 327, Ho.ue v. Truman, Hanbury, Buxton & Co. (1902) 86
L.T.R. 417, and JicNicol v. Pinch, [1906] 2 K.B. 352, referred to.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Criminal
Appeal No. 32 of 1956.
Appeal from the judgment a.nd order dated October 7 and 10, 1955, of the Bombay High Court in
Criminal Appeal No. 817of1955.
Porus A. Mehta, R. Ganapathy Iyer and G. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant.
N. S. Bindra, R.H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, for the
respondent .
1961. January 27. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.-This is an appeal by specia1Raghuba, Dayal
leave by Ardeshir H. Bhiwandiwala against the order
of the High Court of Bombay allowing an appeal
594
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961]
z96z
by the State against the acquittal of the appellant
A deshir
of an offence under s. 92 of the Factories Act, 1948
n. Bh;wandiwala (Act LXIII of 1948), hereinafter called the Act,
v.
for his working the Wadia Mahal Salt Works situate
State of Bombay at Wada!&, Bombay,· without obtaining a licence
R h -
under s. 6 of the said Act read with r. 4 of the rules
ag ubar Dayal J. framed under the Act.
The main question for determination in this appeal
is whether these Salt Works come within the definition of the word " factory " under cl. (m) of s. 2 of the
Act. The answer to this question depends on the
meaning of the word " premises " in the definition of
the word "factory "and on the determination whether
what is done at this Sa.It Works in connection with
the conversion of sea water into crystals of salt comes
within the definition of the expriission " manufacturing process" in cl. (k) of s. 2 of the Act.
The Salt Works extend over an area of about two
hundred and fifty acres. Some of the other salt
works, however, have even larger areas. The only
buildings on this land consist of temporary shelters
constructed for the resident labour and for an office.
At a few places, pucca platforms exist for fixing the
water pump when required to pump water from the
sea. When not required, this pump is kept in the
office. With the exception of the constructions
already mentioned, the entire area of the Sa.It Works
is open. On the sea side, it has bunds in order to
prevent sea water flooding the salt pans.
Clause (m) of s. 2 of the Act reads:
" ' factory ' means any premises including the
precincts thereof-
(i) whereon ten or· more workers are working,
or were working on any day of the preceding twelve
months, and in any pa.rt of which a manufacturing
prooeBB is being carried on with the aid of power,
or ls ordinarily so carried on, or
(ii) whereon twenty or more workers are working,
or wiire working on any day of the preceding twelve
months, and in any part of which a manufacturing
process is being carried on without the aid of power,
or is ordinarily so carried on, -
I
I..
S S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
595
but does not include a mine subject to the opera.
>96r
tion of the Mines Act, 1952, or a. railwa.y running
Ardeshir
shed."
H. Bhiwanttiwala
The relevant portion of the definition of" manufacturv.
ing process" in cl. (k) of s. 2, reads :
s1a1, of Bombay
"'manufacturing process' means any process for-
--
")
k'
1
·
· ·
t'
fi · h Raghubar Dayal ].
(1 ma mg, a termg, repa1rmg, ornamen mg, ms -
ing, packing. oiling, washing, cleaning, breaking
up, demolishing, or otherwise treating or adapting
a.ny article or substance with a view to its use, sale,
tra.nsport, delivery or disposal ; or
(ii) pumping oil, water or sewage ; or ............ "
It is contended for the appella.nt that the expression "premises" in the definition of the word "factory"
means " buildings " and that "mere open land " is not
covered by the word " premises " and as there are no
buildings except temporary sheds on the Salt Works,
the Salt Works cannot be said to be a " factory ". We
do not agree with this contention. The word "premises " has now come to refer to either land or buildings
or to both, depending on the context. The meanings
of the word " premises " in various lexicons and
dictionaries are given below :
(a) Wharton's Law Lexicon:
" Premises " is often used as meaning " land or
houses".
(b) Cochran's Law Lexicon, IV Edition:
" Premises " means " houses or la.nds ".
(c) Black, H.C., Law Dictionary, IV Edition:
" Premises " as used in the estates means-
(i) lands and tenements ; an estate; land and
buildings thereon; the
subject-matter of the
conveyance ;
(ii) a distinct a.nd definite locality and may mean
a room, especially building or other definite a.rea;
(d) Ea.rl Jowitt, Dictionary of English Law:
" Premises" ....•.... from this use of the word,
"premises" has gradually acquired the popular
sense ofland or buildings. Originally, it was only
used in this sense by laymen, and it was never so
used ill well-dra.wn instruments, but it is now
z96z
Ardeskir
H. Bhiwantliwala
v.
State of Bombay
Raghubar Dayat J.
596
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961]
frequently found in instruments and in Acts of
Parliament as meaning land or houses, e.g., the
Public Health Act, 1875, s. 4, where "premises"
includes messuages, buildings, lands, easements,
tenements and hereditaments of any tenure ..... .
(e) Ballentine, J.A., Law Dictionary with Pronunciation, II Edition :
"Premises "-as applied to land, Webster's New
International Dictionary defines the word as follows: The property conveyed in a deed ; hencP
in general, a piece of land or real estate ; some.
times, especially in fire insurance papers, a building
or buildings on land; the premises insured.
It is therefore clear that the word " premises " is a
generic term meaning open land or land with buildings
or buildings alone.
The expression " premises including precincts " it
has been urged, clearly indicates that in the context
of the definition of the word "factory'', premises
meant only buildings as buildings alone can have
precints and there can be no precincts of any open
land. This expression " premises including precincts"
does not necessarily mean that the premises must
always have precincts. Even buildings need not
have any precincts. The word "including" is not a
term restrrcting the meaning of the word " premises "
bnt is a term which enlarges the scope of the word
" premises ". We are therefore of opinion that even
this contention is not sound and does not lead to the
only conclusion that the word "premises" must be
restricted to mean buildings and be not taken to cover
open land as well.
Sub-cl. (bb) of cl. (I) of s. 7 of the Act requires the
occupier of a factory to mention in the written notice
to be sent to the Chief Inspector before his occupying
or using any premises as a factory, the name and
address of the owner of the premises or building
including the precincts thereof referred to in s. 93.
This sufficiently" indicates that the word " premises "
is not restricted in Rcope to buildings alone. Of
course, the building referred to in this cl<J.use is the
3 S,C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
597
building which is referred to in s. 93 of the Act.
z96z
Sub-s. ( l) of s. 93 reads :
Ardeshir
"Where in any premises separate buildings· a.re H. Bhiwandiwala
leased to different occupiers for use as separate
v.
factories, the owner of the premises shall be resState of Bombay
ponsible for the provision and maintenance of
--
common facilities and services, such as approach Raght:bar Dayal .T·
roads, drainage, water supply, lighting and sanitation."
This a.gain makes it clear that "premises" refer to an
entire area which may have within it several separate
buildings.
Further, s. 85 empowers the State Government to
declare that all or any of the provisions of the Act
shall apply to any place wherein a manufacturing
process is carried on with or without the aid of power
or is so ordinarily carried on notwithstanding certain
matters mentioned in the section. The word "place"
is again a general word which is applicable to both
open land and to buildings and its use in this section
indicates that the Act can be applied to works carrying on a manufacturing process on open land.
There is thus internal evidence in the Act itself to
show that the word "premises" is not to be confined
in its meaning to buildings alone.
The High Court has rightly pointed out that the
Act is for the welfare of the workers and deals with
matters connected with the health, safety, welfare,
working hours of the workers, employment of young
persons and leave to be granted to workers and that,
therefore, the legislature could not have intended to
discriminate between the workers who are engaged in
a manufacturing process in a building and those who
are engaged in such a process on open land.
It is contended for the appellant that the various
provisions of the Act cannot be applicable to salt
works where the process of converting sea water into
salt is carried on in the open. This is true as regards
some of the provisions, but then there is nothing in
the Act which makes it uniformly compulsory for
every occupier of a factory to comply with every
requirement of the Act, An occupier is to comply
598
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961]
x96x
with such provisions of the Act which apply to the
A d h.
factory he is working. It is admitted that the workers
H. Bh:::n;;wala have a.t times to work a.t night; that some women
v.
workers are ernployed; that workers have to take
State of l)ombay rest; that they have to take food at about mid.day;
-~
that they do require drinking water and that first.aid
R•ghubar Dayal f. things a.re kept in the office room. It may be that the
occupier ha.a ma.de adequate arrangements for such
purposes but this does not mean that the provisions of
the Act concerning suoh amenities shall not be applicable to salt works. Further, the Act has sufficient
provisions empowering the State to exempt the occupiers from complying with certain provisions as a
special case.
Section 6 of the Act empowers the State Government to make rules requiring the previous permission
in writing of the State Government or the Chief
Inspector to be obtained for the site on which the
factory is to be situated and for the construction or
extension of any factory or class or description of
factories. This provision of the Act together with
the relevant rules framed in that connection, does not
mean that every factory must have a building aud
that necessary permission for its construction or
extension is to be obtained. Of course, every factory
must have a. site and previous permission of the State
Government or the Chief Inspector may be necessary
before the site is to be used for the purposes of a
factory.
Further, there is nothing in the definition of
"manufacturing process" which would make it necessary that this process be carried on in a. building.
This definition really deals with the nature of the
work done and not with where that work is to be
done. The work can be done both in the building or
in the open.
Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant relied on
certain cases which a.re detailed below:
In Kent v. Astley (1) it was hela that a slate quarry,
a large open space extending over an area of 400
acres, the works of which were carried on in the open
(1) (1869) L.R. ~ Q.B. 19.
I
I
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
599
air, the only buildings being sheds, was not a "factory"
r96r
within the meaning of30 & 31 Viet. c.103 (Factory Acts
A 4 ,.
•
b
C kb
C
rUExtenSIOn Act, 1867), s. 3, su -s. 7.
oc
urn,
.J., H Bhiwandiwal•
said at page 23:
·
v.
" Therefore, if this work had been carried on State of Bombay
within a building, I think that it would have fallen
-
within the scope of the statute, and that the justices Raghub•• Day•/ J.
ought to have convicted ......... , and I do not think
that in using the word ' premises ' the legislature
intended to include sheds erected in the quarry
merely as a protection against the weather; they are
only accessories to the quarry and the quarrying
processes; and the legislature has not yet declared
that open air works shall be within the scope of the
Factory Acts ...... But, except in cases which have
been specially provided for, it has not as yet included works carried on in the open air, because they
are less exposed to the evils incident to manufactures carried on in buildings."
Mellor, J., said at page 24:
"The legislature has from time to time extended
the Factory Acts to different trades and businesses.
Numerous slate quarries exist, and a large number
of persons are employed in them: if the legislature
intended to apply the Factory Acts to them, it would
have been done by special enactment."
Hannen, J., said :
"I agree with my Brother Mellor, that if the
legislature had intended to apply the Factory Acts
to quarries, they would have been expressly mentioned, and this omission leads strongly to the
conclusion that it was not intended to interfere with
persons employed in. quarries."
It is not clear from t.hese observations alone why the
slate quarries where work was carried on in the open
air and not in building, was not held to be "a factory"
on that account. This is, however, apparent when
one considers that the Factory Act of 1833 was
enacted to regulate the labour of children and young
persons in the mills and factories of the United
Kingdom and applied only to cotton, woollen, worsted,
hemp, flu, tow. linen or silk mill or factory wherein
77
600
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961]
zg6z
steam or water or any other mechanical power was
A•deshi•
used to propel or work the machinery. in such mill or
H. Bhiwandiwala factory. The other subsequent Acts simply extended
v.
the scope of the Factory Act of 1833. The Act of
St"'4 of Bombay 1844 was to amend the law relating to labour in
R
-
factories and provided by s. LXXIII that " the
· aghwbar Dayal f. Factory Act as amended by this Act and this Act "
would be construed together as one Act. The relevant
portion of the definition of the word " factory " in
this Act reads:
"The word 'factory ' notwithstanding any Provision or Exemption .in the Factory Act shall be taken
to mean all Buildings and Premises ·situated within
any part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland wherein or within the Close or Curtilage
of which Steam, Water, or any other mechanical
Power shall be used to move or work any Machinery
employed in preparing, manufacturing, or finishing,
or in any Process incident to the Manufacture of
Cotton, Wool, Hair, Silk, Flax, Hemp, Jute, or Tow,
either separately or mixed together, or mixed
with any other Material or any Fabric made
thereof."
This indicates that " premises " need not consist of
buildings and that they mean something different from
buildings.
The Acl; of 1850 was for the regulation of the
employment of children in factories and provided that
that Act would be construed together with the previous Acts as one Act.
There is nothing particular in the Factory Act of
1856 to refer to.
The Act of 1860 dealt with the employment of
women, young persons and children in bleaching works
and dyeing works under the regulations of the Factories
Act; s. VII, which defines the words " Bleaching
Works" and "Dyeing Works" reads, with regard to
its relevant portion, thus :
" In the Construction of this Act the words
'Bleaching Works' and 'Dyeing Works' shall be
understood respectively to mean any Building,
Buildings, or Premises in which Females, Young
I
I
I
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
601
Persons a.nd Children, or a.ny of them, a.re employed,
•96i
a.nd in One or more of which Buildings or Premises
k
· d
AriUs/Mr
a.ny Process previous to pac ing is carr1e on ... "
H. Bhi,.aJtdiwo/a
Section IX gives the exemptions and its releva.nt por.
v.
tion is :
Sial• of B°"""'Y :
" Nothing in this Act contained shall extend or
-
apply to ... or to any Premises, either open, inclosed, RagAu/lar D•y41 J.
or covered, used or to be used bona fide exclusively
for the· purposes cif carrying on ...... "
This makes it clear that "premises " can consist of
open areas.
The 1867 Act is descdbed as " Fa.ctory Acts Extension Act, 1867 ", and according to s. 3, "factory "
means:
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.
Any premises, whether adjoining or separa.te,
in the same occupation, situate in the sa.me City,
Town, Parish, or Place, and constituting One Tra.de
Establishment, in, on or within the Precincts of
which Fifty or more Persons are employed in any
ma.nufa.cturing Process ;
"
••••••••••••••••••••••••••• p ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
It is clear from the series of legislation up to the decision in Kent'B case(') that the Parliament specifically
enacted with respect to the places which were to be
controlled by the respective Factory Acts and tha.t it
was therefore that it was said tha.t if the legisla.ture
ha.d intended to apply the Factory Act to the slate
quarries, it would have extended the Act to them. As
the various Factories and Mills which were covered by
. the Factory Act of 1833 were such whioh could function only in buildings, the conception grew that
nothing would come within the expression " factory "
unless it had a building and unless the Factory Act
definitely provided for the application of the Act to it.
The next case relied on is Redgrave v. Lee (•). The
earlier decision was just followed in this.
The next case cited for the appellant is N aah v.
HoUinahead (•).
This case too is distinguishable as the
fa.rm on which the workman was employed to drive
a movable steam engine for the purpose of working a
(I) (t8~J L.R. S Q.B. 19.
I•) (1874) g Q.B. 363.
(3) [1901) 1 K.B. 700.
602
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961J
'96r
mill for grinding ·meal in tended to be used for food for
Ar.imli
stock on the farm. and nnt for sale, was held to be
H. Blti""'llil~ not a factory in view of the fact that the meal which
v.
was ground was not intended for the purpose of sale
SltJU ~1 BOHtbdy but ·was meant only for feeding the stock from the
R
-
.
farm. It was also observed that the consequences of
· ac'"'b•r Day.I f . .holding a farm to be a factory "would really produce
a ludicrous result ". It is on the basis of this observation that the trial Court, in the present case, held
that the application of the provisions of the Act to
the Salt Works would lead to " ludicrous results". We
have already stated that such is not the result of the
application of the relevant provisions of the Factories
Act to the Salt Works.
There is nothing useful for the present case, for our
.purpose, in Weston v. Lonilnn County Council (1) and
in Wood v. London County Council(").
It may now be mentioned that the Factories Act,
1937 (1 Edw. 8 & 1 Geo. 6, c. 67) specifically provides
in sub-s. (7) of s. 151 t;hat "premises 8hall not be
excluded from the definition of a factory by reason only
that they are open air premises". Various clauses of
.aub-s. (I) of s. 151 define "factory" to mean "any
premises in which certain type of work is carried on by
way of trade or for purposes of gain." These provisions support the interpretation we are putting on the
word "pn1mises" in cl. (m) of s. 2 of the Act.
We therefore hold that the Salt Works would come
within the meaning of the expression "premises " in
the definition of the word "factory " and would be a
factory if the work carried on there comes within the
definition of " manufacturing process".
The second contention for the appellant is that the
process of converting sea water into salt does not
amount to " manufacturing process " as no process for
making, altering, packing, cleaning or otherwise treating or adapting any artwle or substance with a view
to its use, sale, transport, delivery or disposal is carried
on. It is also urged that no other process mentioned
in cl. (k) of s. 2 is carried on in the Salt Works, that it
is just the force of gravity and the solar energy which
• (1) [1941] 1 K.B. 6og.
(2) [1941] 2 K.B. 232.
I-
•
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
608
do the necessary wGrk for the occupiers of th& Salt
r,#r
WQ!"ks to convert sea water into salt and. that no
AriH 8 .
human agency is employed in suoh conversion. This H. Bli.,:;walo
contention found favour with the trial Court. The
,,.
High Court, however, did not agree with it and stated: s,.,, tif BooolWy
"In our opinion it is a. travesty of language to say
-
that although 47 workmen are working on theseR""'-'°"""' I·
works, salt is ma.de without the assistance of human
agency ............ Now, in this case there is no doubt
that the workmen employed on these salt works a.re
dealing with the sea water in a. particular manner
and but for the dealing with it in that manner,
salt as made on these works would not be ma.de. "
We agree with the High Court that the conversion of
sea water into salt is not due merely to natural forces,
but is due to human efforts aided by natural forces.
The sea. water in the sea never becomes salt merely on
account of the play of sun's rays on it. The natural
force of gravity is utilised for carrying sea. water from
the sea. to the reservoirs, thence to the tapavanis and
from there to the crystallizing pans which a.re specially prepared by thumping the mud and ma.king the
lay.er of the ground hard and water-tight. The solar
energy is utilised in evaporating the water in the brine.
The human agency is employed for other processea
carried on in the Salt Works.
The process of ma.king salt is described in the letter
dated July 12, 1949, included in Exhibit 1, from the
President, Salt Merchants and Shilotires Association,
Bombay, to the Secretary, Department of Industry
and Supply, Government of India., New Delhi, thus:
" A sa.lt work ma.inly consists of an open marshy
area surrounded by mud embankment, the height of
which is above the highest tide water mark in that
locality to prevent inundation. In this embankment,
sluice gates are provided with suitable places to take
in and discharge the sea water and the waste water
respectivelr,. The inner enclosed area. is divided
into compartments for the storage of sea brine of
different densities. When the salt is formed, it ill
stored on the platform by the labourers engaged in
the manufa.c~ur!l. It is then weighed, bagged &nd
z96z
A..US/lir
H. Bhiwandiwala
v.
Stai. of Bombay
RaghubaT Dayal J.
604
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961)
carried to Railway Station or to a port of shipment ........... .
For salt production the sea water is taken into
the Reservoirs at high water tide twice during a
month. The high tides take place on about nine or
ten days in a month, five days during day time and
four times at night.
Some of the labourers are
detained for this work but they are also not required
to be present the whole time, when tha evaporation
is going on. Once the brine is let into the crystallising
beds, its surface is not to be disturbed for four or
five days. After this, the labourer has to be careful
to see that the density does not exceed a certain
limit and that the other kiuds of salt contained in
the brine are not deposited, thus contaminating the
sodium chloride (common salt) already formed. This
they learn by experience.
Sifting and storing then begins. The labourer has
also to refill the crystallizing beds with fresh brine.
Thus the labourers' work is intermittent and not
continuous for any fixed hours. "
It is clear therefore that labourers are employed for
(i) admitting sea water to the reservoirs by working
sluice gates, sometimes at night also, or the pump;
(ii) filling crystallizing beds; (iii) watching ~he density
of brine in the crystallizing beds; (iv) seeing that
the density does not exceed certain limits and that
salts other than sodium chloride (common salt) are not
formed; (v) scraping and collecting salt crystals;
(vi) grading the salt crystals by "sieving" and
(vii) putting salt into gunny bags.
It follows that it is due to human agency, aided by
natural forces, that salt is extracted from sea water.
The processes carried out in tlie Salt Works and
described above, come within the definitiou of" manufacturing process" inasmuch as salt can be said to
have been manufactured from sea water by the process
of treatment and adaptation of sea water into salt. The
sea water, a non-commercial article, has been adapted
to salt, a commercial article.
The observations in Sedgwick v. Watney, C<>mbe,
Reid & C<>mpany, Limited (1) at page 463, support the
(1) [1931) A.C. 446.
3 S.C.R.
SUfREME COURT REPORTS
605
view that the process undergone at the Salt Works is
'96'
the process. of treatment of sea water fo~ the purpose
AYdesAfr
of convertmg it into salt.
The hered1tament, the H. Bhiwa~diroala
subject of controversy in the case, was used in connecv.
tion with the manufacture of "bottled beer " by the Slate of Bombay
respondent. Brewed beer, which was not in a drink-
-
able condition, and therefore not saleable as draught Raghubar Dayal f.
beer, was brought to the premises in tank wagons and
pumped into large tanks. Carbonic acid gas was put
into it. It was then filtered and put into bottles which
were corked and labelled.
The bottles were then
packed and removed for delivery. The question for
decisiou was whether the hereditament was occupied
and used for the purpose of distributive wholesale
business. In that connection it was said :
" But the point is whether the treatment that the
beer undergoes in these premises is a mere prelude
to distribution. I am clearly of opinion that it is
not. The finished article that is being prepared for
di~tribution is bottled beer. It undergoes treatment,
a treatment which changes its quality and makes it
from an unpotable and unmarketable article into a
potable and marketable one."
In the present case, in the Salt Works, the finished
article is "salt". It does not enter the Salt Works as
"salt". It enters as brine which, under the process
carried out, changes its quality, and becomes salt, a
marketable article.
The observations in Grovt v. Lloyds British Testing
Go. Ltd. (1) at page 467 support the view that the
conversion of sea water into salt amounts to adapting
it for sale. It is stAted there :
" I think • adapting for sale' points clearly to
something being done to the article in question
which, in some way, makes it in itself a little
different from what it was before."
In Kaye v. Burrows & Others ancl. Hines v. Eastern
Counties Farmers' Go operative .Association Ltd.'(') it was
said at page 484:
·
" The test is just as it was in the bottled beer
case. You must look at what is the finished article
(1) [1931) A.C. 'f66,
(z) [19~1J A.C. '177·
A1deshi1
H. Bhiwandiuiala
v.
State of Bombay
606
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961]
to be turned out. If that finished article is only put
into the condition of a finished article by the processes to which it has been subjected in the hereditament, then the processes will fall within the
expression 'altering or adaptation for sale '.
*
*
•
RaghubarDayal J.
In both the cases of the rags and the seeds the
finished article is different from the article in bulk
which enters the hereditament, and that is, in our
opinion, an adaptation for sale."
In The State of Keraia v. V. M. Patel (1) this Court
held the treatment of pepper and ginger to be a
"manufacturing process" where the work which was
carried on in the premises of the firm was described
thus:
" It consisted of winnowing, cleaning, washing and
drying pepper on concrete floor. A similar process
was also being applied to ginger, which was dipped
in llme and laid out to dry in a warehouse on the
premises."
The case reported as In re: Chinniah, Manager,
Sangu Soap Works(') is of no help to the appellant as
there nothing definite was held about the process
carried out to be a manufacturing process or not and
what was stated was in connection with the word
"manufacture" in general and not with reference to
"manufacturing process."
Similarly the case reported as Paterson v. Hunt (3)
is not of much help. It simply held that mere sorting of rags will not amount to adapting for sale.
In l
this case reference was made to it being held in Law
v. Graham(') that washing the bottles before the beer
•
was put into them was not adapting the beer, or
adapting the bottles or adapting the bottled beer for
l
the purpose of sale and in Hoare v. Truman, Hanbury,
Ill
Buxton & Co.(') that it was a case of adapting for sale
when gas was used to force carbonic acid at high
pressure into the beer for charging it with the acid
and mixing it and so aerating the beer. The case is
(1) Cr!. <\pp. No. 42 of 1959.
P,~ided on October 12, 1960.
(2) A.l.R. 1957 Ma<!. 755·
I 3) (1909) 101 L.T.R. 571.
(4) [1901] 2 K.B. 327.
(5) (<902) 86 'L.T.R. 417.
38.C,R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
607
distinguishable as sorting of rags brought about no
r96r
change in particular rags sorted out. They were just
Ardeshir
separated from other things with which they were H. Bhiwandiwala
mixed and therefore the rags were in no way adapted
v.
to some different article.
This cannot be said in State of Bombay
connection with the conversion of sea water into salt. R h b11
,
.
aguarDaya,
The decisions in McNicol v. Pinch (1), State v.
Ohrestien Mica Industries Ltd.(') and G. R. Kulkarni
v. The State (3) are of no help in determining the point
under consideration as there the word " manufacture "
was interpreted according to the dictionary meaning
and the context. In the present case, we are considering
the definition of the expression " manufacturing process " and no dictionary meaning of the word " manufacture" and no interpretation of what constitutes
" manufacture " for the purposes of other Acts can be
of any guide. It may, however, be noted that even
according to the meaning given to the word " manufacture", the conversion of brine into salt would
amount to manufacture of salt as " the essence of
making or of manufacturing is that what is made
shall be a different thing from that out of which it is
made "-vide McNicol v. Pinch(') page 361.
We are therefore of opinion that the process of
converting sea water into salt carried on on the 11,ppellant's Salt Works comes within the definition of
" manufacturing process " in cl. (k) of s. 2 of the Act.
Reference was made to the expression of opinion by
the Chief Inspector of Factories in his letter to the
Deputy Salt Commissioner, Bombay, in support of
the appellant's contention that salt works as such do
not come within the definition of the word " factory ".
It was stated in this letter that originally salt pans
were considered to be amenable to the Factories Act
a.nd a.s such salt pan occupiers were informed to get
the pans registered and licensed. However, as some
doubt was felt, the queRtion was re-examined and it
had been found that salt pans would not be factories
except where they were equipped with a building used
(1) [1906] 2 K.B. 352.
(2) I.L.R. r1956] Pat. 660.
(3) l.L.R. [1957] M. P. 13.
608
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961]
'96'
in connection with the manufacture of salt. The
A;:;:;.;.
Deputy Commissioner for Salt was not satisfied with
H. Bhiwandiwala this view and in his reply dated September 13, 1952,
v.
stated, after referring to theprovisions·of cl. (m) oh. 2
s1a1. 01 Bombay of the Act, that " by premises is meant building and
R , ba D
1 1 its adjuncts". No further correspondence between
agnu '
aya
· h
h ' '
h
b
b
h
h
d
d
t ese aut ont1es as een roug t on t e recor an
we do not know what had been the final view taken
by the authorities in this connection. Further, such
a view expressed by any authority is of no help in
deciding the questions before us.
It may also be mentioned that the representation
made by the President of the Salt Merchants and
Shilotires Association on July 12, 1949, to the Secretary to Government of India, Department of Industries
& Supply, did not raise the contention that the salt
works did not come within the definition of the word
"factory" and merely represented that the provisions of the Act be not applied to the salt works in
view of the matters mentioned in that representation.
Even the reply by the appellant's firm to the Inspector of Factories dated April 9, 1952, did not state
that the salt works did not come within the definition
of the word "factory" and simply stated that the
provisions of the Indian Factories Act were considered
redundant for which their Bombay Salt Association
had already made a suitable representation to the
Government of India. It was for the first time, .in the
written statement filed by the appellant in the trial
Court, that it was contended that the Salt Works
would not come within the word " factory " in the
Act. Omission of the accused or the Association of
salt merchants to contend, at an earlier stage, that
the salt works do not come within the definition of
the word "factory " is also not of any relevance for
our considering the questions before us. We ha. ve
ma.de reference to it only in view of the reference
ma.de by the appellants to an opinion expressed by
the Chief Inspector of Factories in his letter to the
Deputy Salt Commissioner dated September 13, 1952.
In view of the above, we are of opinion that the
appellant's Sa.It Works do come within the definition
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
609
of the word "factory " and that the appellant has
'96'
been rightly convicted of the offence of working the
A~-;,.
factory without obtaining a licence. We therefore H. BA:w~n~:wol•
dismiss the appeal.
v.
Appeal di8missed.
51•1• of Bombay
THE PIONEER MOTORS (PRIVATE) LTD.
v.
Raghubar Dayol ].
THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, NAGERCOIL.
(and connected appeals)
(J. L. KAPUR, M. HrnAYATULLAH and J. C. SHAH, JJ.)
Profession Tax-Provision for time before levy, if mandatoryReasonableness-Commissioner'> powers, if can carry out executive
powers of the Municipality-" Profession", definition of-Travancore District Municipalities Act, rn6 (Act XX ill of the Malayalam
year III6), ss. I6, 78, 9I.
The imposition of "profession tax" by the respondent
Municipal Council under the Travancore District Municipalities
Act (Act XXIII of the Malayalam year n16) was challenged on
the grounds, inter alia (1) that the requisite notification was not
published by the Municipal Council but by its commissioner,
(2) that the period of thirty days which was given for filing
objections to the imposition was insufficient in Jaw which required
a period of "not Jess than a month ", and (3) that this was a
mandatory provision under the proviso to s. 78 of the Act.
Held, tr.at under s. r6 the Commissioner being the executive
authority of the Municipal Council was authorised to give effect
to the resolutions of the Council and to perform all its executive
duties.
The words "not being less than one month" in the proviso
to s. 78 implied the necessity for one clear' month's notice excluding the first and last day of the month, but the use of the words
" reasonable period " before the word~ " not being less than one
mont.h " showed that the time given must be reasonable. In
view of the facts of the case the period allowed must be regarded
as reasonable and to have complied with the provision which is
directory in its later part.
Commissioner. of Income-tax v. Ekbal and Co. [1945] 13
I.T.R. 154 and Thompson v. Stimpson, [196o] 3 All E.R. 500,
distinguished.
·
Municipal Council, Cud<lapah v. The Madras and Soutlurn
Mahratta Railway Ltd. (1929) I.L.R. 52 Mad. 779, The Borough
Municipality of Amalner v. The Pratap Spinning, Weaving and
Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Amalner, I.L.R. [1952] Born. 918 and Kalu
Karim v. Municipality of Broull (1927) I.L.R. 51 Bom. 764,
referred to.
I96I