KULDIP SINGH - (1.) THE Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited (the Company), respondent in the appeal herein is primarily engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel/iron and steel materials. According to the Company, it owns captive "coking coal mines" has also installed "coke oven plants" within the factory premises and as such it comes within the definition of 'colliery' under the Colliery Control Order, 1945 (the Order) promulgated by the Government of India. THE State of Bihar, with the prior concurrence of the Central Government, and in exercise of the powers conferred by the Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, has issued an order called the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 (the Unification Order).THE question for consideration in this appeal is whether the Company is a 'dealer' within the Unification Order, and as such is governed by the provisions thereunder. A Dvision Bench of the Patna High Court has answered the question in the negative and in favour of the Company. This appeal by the State of Bihar is against the judgment of the Patna High Court dated 14/04/1988.
(2.) THE Company has its registered office at Bombay and its integrated steel plant at Jamshedpur. THE captive coking coal mines of the Company are in the Jharia Coal Fields and at West Bokaro in the State of Bihar. THE coking coal extracted and raised from the mines is beneficiated in the coal washing plants,sterlised at Jamaduba and West Bokaro and thereafter the entire production is transferred to the company's coke oven plants at Jamshedpur for converting the same into hard coke meant for use in the blast furnaces. According to the Company about 85 per cent. of its coal requirement is received from the captive coal mines and the remaining 15 per cent. is procured indigenously or by import from abroad. It is asserted by the Company that for the purpose of steel manufacturing only metallurgical quality of coke is used and for that purpose the coking coal, whether received from the captive coal mines or otherwise, is converted into metallurgical coke through the process of coke oven plants. According to the Company inferior quality of coke such as middlings and coal rejects produced at the Company's collieries and some of the coke fractions such as coke breeze,pearl coke, etc.produced at its oven plants which are not of metallurgical quality and not capable of being used in its steel plant that are sold and disposed of by the Company. It is stated that the disposal of such unwanted and unusable material arising in the continuous process of the integrated manufacturing operation becomes a necessity for preventing congestion in the steel plant. The Supply Inspector of the State of Bihar seized six trucks loaded with coke breeze which were sold by the Company without obtaining licence as envisaged under the Unification Order. Criminal proceedings under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for violation of the Unification Order were also initiated against the Company, which was challenged by way of a writ petition before the Patna High Court. The primary contention of the Company before the High Court was that it being a colliery under the Order which was Central Government promulgation, the Unification Order issued by the State Government was not applicable. The High Court by the judgment dated 12/11/1986 dimissed the writ petition. The Company challenged the judgment of the High Court by way of special leave petition before this Court. This Court in Civil Appeal 576 of 1987 decided on 3/12/1987 : (reported in 1988 (1) JT (SC) 15) set aside the judgment of the High Court and remanded the matter for fresh decision. The operative part of the order is as under (para 5) : "We are of the view that very contentious issues were involved in the matter. The aspects that required examination could not have been disposed of in the matter in which the Division Bench has dealt with it. The question as to whether the appellants are dealers has to be examined as without the appellant being a dealer within the meaning of the 1984 Order, no liability to comply with the impugned requirements of the Order would arise. Even Mr. Jai Narain found it difficult to ask for sustaining the impugned order as relevant aspects have not been examined. Taking all these aspects into consideration,we set aside the order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh disposal on merits after hearing the parties. Full opportunity should be given to the parties to place their arguments and the case should be disposed of in accordance with law. We did not intend to express any opinion on merit and if anything has been said it should be taken by way of justification for the remit." On remand, the High Court heard the parties afresh and by the impugned judgment dated 14/04/1988 allowed the writ petition. The High Court came to the conclusion that the Company was a colliery and as such was governed by the provisions of the Order. The High Court reached the said conclusion on the following reasoning : "8. As noticed above, the Company is the owner of coal mines as well as coke oven plant. Colliery within the meaning of the definition of the Central Order not only means any mine or open working where the getting of coal is the principal object of the mining, quarrying or other operations carried on therein but includes a plant for the production of coke or for the washing of coal. In view of the inclusive definition, coke oven plant and coal washeries are also callieries within the meaning of that Order. 9. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the word 'includes' in the context mean only such coke oven plant which is near the vicinity of a coal mine and shall be a colliery. This submission cannot be accepted. The word 'include'is generally used as a word of extension and when this word is used it adds to the word or phrase a meaning which does not naturally belong to it. The word 'colliery' ordinarily will signify a coal mine, but because of the use of the word 'include'in the definition of colliery, it must be construed as comprehending not only such things as it signifies according to its natural import,but also those things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include. Thus where 'includes' has an extending force, it adds to the word or phrase a meaning which does not belong to it. Reference may be made to the South Gujarat Roofing tiles Manufactures Association v. State of Gujarat, (1976) 4 SCC 601: (AIR 1977 SC 90) 10. The word 'colliery' as defined in the Central Order does not envisage that coke oven plant must be nearabout or in the vicinity of the coal mine. We may mention that coal mines and coke oven plant belonging to the Company have not been nationalised under the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 or the Coal Mines (Nationalisation)Act 1973. It must, therefore, be held that the coke oven plant at Jamshedpur belonging to the Company is a 'colliery' within the meaning of the Central Order."
(3.) THE High Court further followed its earlier judgment in Black Diamond Industries v. Coal Controller, 1986 BLT (Reports)127 : (AIR 1988 Patna 239), and held as under: "For the reasons given in Black Diamond case it must be held that to the coke oven plant at Jamshedpur, the Central Order applies and the Unification Order shall have no application." In Black Diamond's case, (AIR 1988 Patna 239) a Division Bench of the High Court examined the provisions of the Order and also the Unification Order, and came to the conclusion that the two operated in different fields. The Bench further came to the conclusion that the Order dealt with producers of coking coal whereas the Unification Order was only applicable to those who were not the producers of coal. It would be useful to reproduce the High Court reasoning in Black Diamond's case, (AIR 1988 Patna 239 at p. 245) which is as under: "A comparison of the different provisions of the Orders noticed above brings out this picture. Colliery Control Order is applicable throughout India and deals with coal including coke. The provisions which are found in the Coal Control Order, Unification Order and Display Order with regard to sale, purchase, storage, price, inspection, compliance of order given by different authorities under those orders and filing of returns are also provided in the Colliery Control Order. Colliery Control Order further provides for regulating production of coal which is not there in any of the Bihar Orders.Colliery Control Order is a special statute which deals with colliery which means a mine or open working where the heating of coal is the principal object of the mining, quarrying or other operations carried on therein and includes a plant for the production of coke. None of the Bihar Orders deal in colliery. The very significant difference between Colliery Control Order on one hand and the Bihar Orders on the other is that whereas the former Order specifically deals with colliery and producers of coal, the latter Orders, i.e., Bihar Orders do not specifically include them but purport to deal with all dealers of coal. Respondents want us to include within the ambit of 'dealer' in Bihar Orders producers of coal also. This cannot be done. Firstly, Colliery Control Order deals with producers of coal and the definition of 'dealer' in Bihar orders do not include producers of coal. Secondly, Colliery Control Order is an exhaustive Code in respect of Colliery. If Bihar Orders are made applicable to Colliery, then these Orders will come in conflict with Colliery Control Order. But this conflict can be avoided if it is held that Bihar Orders do not apply to Colliery. Thirdly, according to the respondents, when Colliery Control Order and Bihar Orders operate in different fields, there is no scope for holding that Bihar Orders will operate also in the field covered by Colliery Control Order. It was urged on behalf of the respondents that in the Colliery Control Order, there is no provision for obtaining a licence. This appears to be true, but the issuance of licence under the Unification Order is meant for controlling the sale, purchase, and storage and contravention of terms and conditions of the licence has been made penal. If Colliery owners, who are the petitioners, are required to obtain licence under the Unification Order, that must be for the purpose of that production, sale, purchase and storage of coke may be regulated within the terms and conditions of the licence. Since the State Government cannot regulate the production, sale, purchase and storage of coke colliery owner, no licence is required to be taken by the colliery owners under the Unification Order." ;