# Studios.Ltd v. Ethirajulu (T.R.) (')).On the other hand

- **Citation:** [1960] 3 S.C.R. 358
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1960
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 596 of 1955
- **Bench:** K. C. DAs GUPTA, J. C. Shah
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/studios-ltd-v-ethirajulu-t-r-on-the-other-hand-1612
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Municipality-Unwholesome food-Seized 11nder warrant-If can
be directed to be destroyed-Bengal Municipal Act, r932(Ben. Act. XV
of.r932), ss. 430, 43r(2).
The respondents were the owners of an oil seed pressing
factory situated within the limit of a·municipality.
They used
to import mustard seeds from different areas and they also held a
(1) (1952) L.A.C. rn3.
(2) (1958) I L.L.J. 63.
(3) A.I.R. 1959 Born. 248·
..
<
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
359
licence for selling mustard seed.
On a report of the Sanitary
r960
Inspector of the Municipality, the Sub-Divisional Officer issued a
search warrant directing seizure of a large quantity of " rotten Chairman of the
and decomposed mustard seed " from the possession of the resBankura
pondents. The Chairman of the Municipality applied, to the
MunicipalftY
District Magistrate for action under s. 43r and s. 432 of the
v,
Bengal Municipal Act.
The proceedings started on the petition Lalji Raja & Sons •
of the Chairman of the Municipality had a chequered career.
Ultimately the District Magistrate found that the mustard seed
was unwholesome and unfit for human consumption on the date
of seizure and directed, in exercise of the powers under s. 43r(2)
of the Act, that the same be made over to the Commissioners of
the Municipality for disposal either as manure or as cattle feed.
The High Court in revision set aside the order of the District
Magistrate holding that s. 43r of the Act under which the order
was made did not apply to a case of seizure of unwholesome food
under a warrant issued under s. 430.
On appeal by the Municipality by special leave:
Held, that the powers under s. 431(2) of the Bengal Municipal Act (XV of r932), were expressly directed to be exercised by
the Magistrate in respect of articles seized under s. 428, and
there was nothing in s. 43r(2) which might justify the view that
those powers could also be exercised in respect of articles seized
under a warrant issued under s. 430.

## Text

358
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1960)
z96o
we are not prepared to hold that the expression
"workmen concerned in such dispute" can be limited
M/s. New India
Motors (P) Ltd. only to such of the workmen who are directly conv.
cerned with the dispute in question. In our opinion,
R. T. Morris
that expression includes all workmen on whose behalf
.
-
the dispute has been raised as well as those who would
Ga;endrngadkar f. be bound by the award which may be made in the
March 23.
said dispute.
It appears that the construction of the relevant
clause had given rise to a divergence of opinion in
industrial courts, but it may be stated that on the
whole the consensus of opinion appears to be in favour
of the construction which we are putting on the said
clause. In Eastern Plywood Manufaeturing Co. Ltd. v.
Eastern Plywood Manufacturing Workers' Union (1 ) the
appellate tribunal has referred to the said conflict of
views and has held that the narrow construction of
the clause is not justified. The High Court of Madras
appears to have taken the same view (Vide: N ewtone
Studios.Ltd. v. Ethirajulu (T.R.) (')).On the other hand,
in The New Jehangir Vakil Mills Ltd., Bhavnagar v.
N. L. Vyas & Ors.('), the Bombay High Court has
adopted the narrow construction ; but for reasons
which we have already explained we must hold that
the Bombay view is not justified on a fair and reasonable construction of the relevant clause.
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with
costs.
Appeal dismissed.
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BANKURA
MUNICIPALITY
v.
LALJI RAJA AND SONS.
( K. C. DAs GUPTA and J. C. SHAH, JJ.)
Municipality-Unwholesome food-Seized 11nder warrant-If can
be directed to be destroyed-Bengal Municipal Act, r932(Ben. Act. XV
of.r932), ss. 430, 43r(2).
The respondents were the owners of an oil seed pressing
factory situated within the limit of a·municipality.
They used
to import mustard seeds from different areas and they also held a
(1) (1952) L.A.C. rn3.
(2) (1958) I L.L.J. 63.
(3) A.I.R. 1959 Born. 248·
..
<
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
359
licence for selling mustard seed.
On a report of the Sanitary
r960
Inspector of the Municipality, the Sub-Divisional Officer issued a
search warrant directing seizure of a large quantity of " rotten Chairman of the
and decomposed mustard seed " from the possession of the resBankura
pondents. The Chairman of the Municipality applied, to the
MunicipalftY
District Magistrate for action under s. 43r and s. 432 of the
v,
Bengal Municipal Act.
The proceedings started on the petition Lalji Raja & Sons •
of the Chairman of the Municipality had a chequered career.
Ultimately the District Magistrate found that the mustard seed
was unwholesome and unfit for human consumption on the date
of seizure and directed, in exercise of the powers under s. 43r(2)
of the Act, that the same be made over to the Commissioners of
the Municipality for disposal either as manure or as cattle feed.
The High Court in revision set aside the order of the District
Magistrate holding that s. 43r of the Act under which the order
was made did not apply to a case of seizure of unwholesome food
under a warrant issued under s. 430.
On appeal by the Municipality by special leave:
Held, that the powers under s. 431(2) of the Bengal Municipal Act (XV of r932), were expressly directed to be exercised by
the Magistrate in respect of articles seized under s. 428, and
there was nothing in s. 43r(2) which might justify the view that
those powers could also be exercised in respect of articles seized
under a warrant issued under s. 430.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Criminal
Appeal No. 119 of 57.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
order dated the 24th August, 1955, of the Calcutta
High Court in Criminal Revision No. 596 of 1955.
0. B. Agarwala and Sukumar Ghose, for the
appellant.
B. Sen and S.N. Mukherjee, for the respondents.
1960. March 23. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
SHAH, J.-M/s. Lalji Raja & Sons-who will hereinShah J.
after be referred to as the respondents-are the owners
of an oil seed pressing factory known as the Gouranga
Oil Mill situated within the limits of the Bankura
Municipality in the State of West Bengal. For extracting oil, the respondents import mustard seed from
different areas. The respondents also hold a license
for the sale of mustard seed.
On the application of the Sanitary Inspector of the
Ba.nkura Municipality, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bankura, issued a search warrant directing seizure of
900 bags of "rotten and decomposed mustard seed",
600 bags stored in the mill godown and 300 bags stored
360
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1960]
z96o
in the court-yard of the rice mill at Hanseswar l\faji.
Pursuant to the search, a large quantity of mustard
Chairman of the
Bankur•
seed spread out for drying in the Gouranga Oil Mill
Municipalily
was seized, and certain bags lying in the rice mill were
v.
also seized. On the report made by the Sanitary
Lalji Raja & Sons Inspector, the Chairman of the Municipality applied
Shah 1
to the District Magistrate of Bankura on March 10,
·
1950, for action under ss. 431 and 432 of the Bengal
Municipal Act, No. XV of 1932, alleging that the mustard seed seized was " in a highly decomposed state
and gave out an offensive stench" and that the same
was unwholesome and unfit for human consumption.
The proceedings started on the petition of the Chairman of the Municipality had a chequered career. It
is unnecessary to set out for the purposes of this appeal
the diverse orders which were made from time to time
by the District Magistrate and which were set aside
by the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta. It may
be sufficient to state that on May 26, 1950, the District
Magistrate ordered restoration of the mustard seed
bags to the respondents and that order was set aside
by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in
revision. Another order passed by the District Magi·
strate in April 1951 directing that the contents of the
bags be disposed of as " manure or fodder " was set
aside by the Calcutta High Court and the proceedings
were directed to be re-tried. The District Magistrate
again held an enquiry and by his order dated November 10, 1954, held that the mustard seed was lawfully
seized in accordance with the provisions of the Bengal
Municipal Act, 1932, that it was unwholesome and
unfit for human consumption on the date of seizure
and directed in exercise of the powers under s. 431(2)
of the Act that the same be made over to the Commissioners of the Bankura Municipality for disposal
either as manure or as cattle feed.
The High Court
at Calcutta by order dated August 24, 1955, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, set aside the order of
the District Magistrate holding thats. 431 of the Bengal
Municipal Act under which the order was made, had
no application to a case of seizure of unwholesome
food seized under a warrant issued under s. 430.
..
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
361
Against the order of the High Court, this appeal is
z95o
filed with special leave.
Chairman of the
The only question which falls to be determined in
Bankura
this appeal is whether articles of food seized under a
Municipality
warrant issued by a Magistrate in exercise of the
v.
.
powers under s. 430 of the Bengal Municipal Act may Lalji Raja & Sons
be ordered to be destroyed under s. 431(2) of the Act;.
Sha;).
In order to determine this question, it is necessary to ,
refer to certain provisions of the Bengal Municipal
Act, 1932.
.
Section 421 prohibits, amongst other acts, selling or
storing for sale of unwholesome articles to be used for
human _consumption. Section 427 (in so far as it is
material) authorizes the Commissioners and certain
other officers of a Municipality to enter upon and inspect any place in which any article of food is deposited
for the purpose of sale or preparation for sale or to
which any article of food intended for human consumption is brought for such purpose, and also to
inspect the articles of food which may be found in tlie
place inspected. Clause (I) of s. 428 confers upon the
Commissioners and the officers designated in s. 427
power to seize articles of food intended for human
consumption if, in the course of inspection, it appears
that the same are unwholesome or unfit for human
consumption. Section 429 provides that the articles
of food referred to in s. 428 which have been seized
under that section may, with the written consent of
the owner or the person in whose possession they are
found, be ordered to be destroyed. If the consent of
the owner or the person in possession is not obtaineq
and the articles are of a perishable nature, the officer
seizing the same may take them before a Magistrate
who may, if it appears to him that the articles are
unsound or unwholesome -or unfit as human food,
condemn the same or ·order ~hem to be destroyed.
Section 430 (in so far as it is material) provides that
if any Magistrate is satisfied on the application of the
Commissioners, Health Officer, Sanitary Inspector or
any other officer authorized by the Commissioner in
this behalf tliat there is just cause to believe that any
food which is unsound, unwholesome or unfit for
human food is in the possession of any person for the
362
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[Hl60]
purpose of being sold or offered or exposed for sale
within the limits of the Municipality for such consumpChainnan of the
h
Banhura
tion, e may grant a warrant authorizing entry upon
Municipality
the premises of such person and search for and seizure
v.
of such articles of food.
Section 431 by the 1st subLalji Raja.,,_ Sons section (in so far as it is material) provides that where
Shah ].
any article of food, seized under s. 428 is not destroyed
by consent under sub-s. 1 of s. 429 or when an article
of food so seized which is perishable is not dealt with
under sub-s. 2 of that section, it shall be taken before
a Magistrate as soon as may be after such seizure.
Sub-s. 2 provides that if it appears to the Magistrate
that any such food is unsound, unwholesome or unfit
for human food, he shall cause the same to be destroyed
or to be otherwise disposed of by the Commissioners
so as not to be capable of being used as human food.
It is evident from this resume of the relevant legislative provisions that the municipal authorities are
entitled to enter upon and inspect places where
articles of food are stored or prepared for sale. If the
municipal authorities find that any article of food
stored or prepared for sale is unwholesome or unfit for
human food, they may seize them and destroy the
same with the written consent of the owner or person
in possession, and if such consent is not forthcoming
and the articles are perishable, destroy them under the
orders of a Magistrate. But s. 428 is not the only .
procedure under the Act authorizing seizure of articles
of food which are unwholesome or unfit for human
food.
The municipal authorities may move a Magistrate for the issue of a warrant for seizure of articles
of food which are unsound, unwholesome or unfit for
human food, and under the authority of the warrant,
such articles may be seized.
Articles of food seized under s. 428(1) which are
not disposed of unuer s. 429 are required to be taken
before a Magistrate as soon as may be after seizure
and under sub-s. 2 of s. 431, the Magistrate is
authorized, if it appears to him that the articles of
food are unsound or unwholesome or unfit for human
food to order destruction or disposal thereof. Evidently, the expression "such" used in sub-s .2 of s. 431
refers to the articles of food described in sub-s. 1 of
··~,
-
-
3 S.C.R. SUPREME- COURT REPORTS
363
that section ; and s. 431(1) only deals with articles
I96°
seized under s. 428.
There is no express provision
h
Chairman of the
made by the legislature either in s. 431 or elsew ere
Bankura
in the Act authorizing destruction or disposal of
Municipality
articles of foqd which are seized under a warrant
v.
issued under S. 430.
Lalji Raja & Sons
-
Counsel for the Municipality contends that the
Shah J.
legislature intended that _all articles seized, whether
on inspection under s. 428 or under a warrant issued
under s. 430 must be dealt with under s. 431 and the
High Court was in error in holding that the authority
of the Magistrate to order destruction or disposal of
articles of food could be exercised only in respect
of articles seized under s. 428. But the words used in
s. 431(2) clearly authorize the Magistrate to order
destruction or disposal of articles seized under s. 428 and
not deaH with under s. 429, and it is difficult to uphold
the plea that the legislature intended, even though it
did not so expressly provide, that the articles seized
under a warrant issued under s. 430 may also be dealt
with under sub-s. 2 of s. 431. Counsel for the Municipality submits that it could not even have been the
intention of the legislature that the Magistrate can
order seizure of unwholesome food but cannot order its
destruction, though he may order destruction of
unwholesome articles of food seized by the officers of
the Municipality. It appears, however, that a person
storing unwholesome articles of food may be prosecuted
for infraction of the provisions of s. 421 and in the
course of or on the conclusion of those proceedings, it
would certainly be open to the Magistrate, having
seizin of the complaint, to pass an appropriate order
under the Code of Criminal Procedure for destruction
ofthe articles seized. In view of this, we are not
prepared to say that the absence of an express
provision relating to the disposal of articles seized
under s. 430 is not deliberate ; but even if we are constrained to hold that there is a lacuna ins. 431, we do
not think that we would be justified contrary to the
plain words used by the legislature, in attempting to
remedy the same by holding that a Magistrate exercising power under sub-s. 2 of s. 431 has authority to
364
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1960]
r 96o
order destruction of articles seized in pursuance of a
warrant issued under s. 430.
Chairman of the
The argument advanced by counsel for the MunicipalBankura
ity that the seizure was in exercise of the powers under
1~1 unicipality
-
v.
s. 428 and not under s. 430 has, in our judgment, no
Lalji Raja & San' force. The report of the Chairman of the Municipality
dated March 10, 1950, makes it abundantly clear that
Shah J.
the search warrant was issued by the Sub-Divisional
Officer in exercise of his authority under s. 430 of the
Bengal Municipal Act.
Any admission by the respondents that the seizure was under s. 428 of the Act
in proceedings for resisting the order which the
Municipality claimed to obtain against them can have
no value.
z960
March 23.
Section 428 does not contemplate a seizure of articles
of food which are unwholesome, under the authority
of a Magistrate, and s. 430 is expressly the proviRion
which authorises a Magistrate to issue a warrant, for
such seizure. The powers under s. 431(2) are expressly
directed to be exercised by the Magistrate in respect
of articles seized under s. 428, and there is nothing in
the former provision which may justify the view that
those powers can also be exercised in respect of articles
seized under a warrant issued under s. 430. In our
opinion, the High Court was right in its conclusion.
The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
M/S. NORTH BROOK JUTE CO. LTD.
AND ANOTHER
v.
THEIR WORKMEN
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO and
K. C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.)
Ind1tstrial Dispute-Rationalisation scheme objected to by worknien~Scheme put into operation pending reference to
Tribitnal~
Workmen's refusal to work-Lock-out-Claim for wages for the period
of lock-out-Industrial Disputes Act, I947 (I4 of I947), ss. 3(2),
9A, 33, 33A.
A rationalisation scheme in the mills of the appellant companies was agreed to by the Works Committee and a notice under
s. 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was given to the
-