minal Appeal No 667 of 1980
From the Judgment and Order dated 3171980 of the Allahabad High Court in Crl
Appln
No 5296 of 1979
MV Goswami for the Appellants
Vishnu Mathur AS Pundir and RC Verma for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SAWANT J
The admitted facts in the present case are as follows
The suit property consists of house No 336 of village Khonda District Mathura
The dispute with regard to the possession of the property arose between the appellants and the respondent Ramshri
She filed an application under Section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code Code before the Sub Divisional Magistrate Sadabad in which she claimed ownership of the suit property
On 31st May 1976 the learned Magistrate passed a preliminary order under Section 145 of the Code and thereafter on 22nd April 1977 made an order of attachment under Section 146 directing that the attachment would continue till the competent civil court determined the rights of the parties with regard to the said property
Against this order a Revision being Cr
Revision No 271977 was filed by the appellants before the Sessions Judge who by his interim order dated 23rd April 1977 stayed operation of the learned Magistrate s order
However before the interim stay order could be communicated the attachment had already been effected
The learned Sessions Judge therefore again by another interim dated 26th April 1977 directed the police to restore the possession the property to the appellants from whom allegedly the possession of the property was taken
The possession was restored to the appellants on 28th April 1977
The said Revision application was dismissed on 18th August 1977
Though on account of the dismissal of the Revision the order of attachment passed by the Magistrate revived the learned Magistrate passed a fresh order dated 31st January 1978 under Section 146 attaching the property in dispute
Against the said order once more a revision being Cr
191978 was preferred by the appellants to the 5 Sessions Judge who on 2nd February 1978 passed an order staying the fresh order of attachment passed by the Magistrate
Thereafter the appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction against the 1st Respondent and her husband and in that claimed an interim injunction against them
The trial court dismissed the application for interim injunction
Against the order of dismissal the appellant filed an appeal to the District Court and the appellate court by its order dated 18th May 1978 allowed the appeal and issued an interim injunction against 1st respondent and her husband
Thereafter Cr
Revision No 191978 preferred by the appellant before the Sessions Judge was dismissed on 15th June 1978 also on the ground that the civil suit was preferred by the Appellant
Again although the order of attachment stood revived and the order of interim injunction by the Civil Court still continued the Magistrate on 25th July 1978 passed another order attaching the property
Against this third order of attachment passed by the Magistrate a revision was filed by the Appellants before the Sessions Judge and the Sessions Judge by his order dated 26th July 1978 stayed the order of attachment issued on 25th July 1978 upto 10th August 1978
On 26th July 1978 the appellant filed an application before the Magistrate for withdrawal of attachment on the ground that there was no apprehension of a breach of the peace
On this application on 17th October 1978 the Magistrate ordered withdrawal of attachment
Against this order the 1st Respondent filed revision being Cr
18078 before the Sessions Judge who dismissed the same on 14th May 1979
Respondent No 1 thereafter preferred an application under Section 482 of the Code before the High Court for quashing the order withdrawing the attachment and directing the attachment to continue
The High Court by the impugned order took the view that it was not open to the learned Magistrate to withdraw the attachment till the competent Court had decided the matter finally and restored the attachment
On these facts two questions arise in this appeal viz whether the High Court could entertain the second revision application in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code and whether the interpretation placed by the High Court on the provisions of Sections 145 and 146 of the Code is correct
There is no doubt that the learned Magistrate had committed an error in passing the subsequent orders of attachment when the first attachment was never finally vacated and had revived the moment the revision application filed against it was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge
It appears that none of the parties including the Sessions Judge realised this error on the part of the Magistrate
The learned Sessions Judge had also committed a patent mistake in entertaining revision application against the fresh orders of attachment and granting interim stays when he had dismissed revision application against the order of attachment earlier
Let that be as it is
The question that falls for our consideration now is whether the High Court could have utilised the powers under Section 482 of the Code and entertained a second revision application at the instance of the 1st respondent
Admittedly the 1st respondent had preferred a Criminal Application being Cr
18078 to the Sessions Court against the order passed by the Magistrate on 17th October 1978 withdrawing the attachment
The Sessions Judge had dismissed the said application on 14th May 1979
Section 397 3 bars a second revision application by the same party
It is now well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code cannot be utilised for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the Code
Hence the High Court had clearly erred in entertaining the second revision at the instance of 1st respondent
On this short ground itself the impugned order of the High Court can be set aside
However since the High Court has also proceeded to interpret the provisions of Sections 145 and 146 of the Code it has become necessary to set things right on that score as well
We are afraid that the High Court has erred in holding that the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 17th October 1978 17978 sic withdrawing attachment was without jurisdiction
The provisions of Section 146 of the Code are clear in this respect
The Section reads as follows 146
Power to attach subject of dispute and to appoint receiver
1 If the Magistrate at any time after making the order under sub section 1 of Section 145 considers the case to be one of emergency or if he decides that none of the parties was then in such possession as is referred to in Section 145 or if he is unable to satisfy himself as to which of them was then in such 7 possession of the subject of dispute he may attach the subject of dispute until a competent Court has determined the rights of the parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to the possession thereof Provided that such Magistrate may withdraw the attachment at any time if he is satisfied that there is no longer any likelihood of breach of the peace with regard to the subject of dispute
2 When the Magistrate attaches the subject of dispute he may if no receiver in relation to such subject of dispute has been appointed by any Civil Court make such arrangements as he considers proper for looking after the property or if he thinks fit appoint a receiver thereof who shall have subject to the control of the Magistrate all the powers of a receiver appointed under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 5 of 1908 Provided that in the event of a receiver being subsequently appointed in relation to the subject of dispute by any Civil Court the Magistrate a shall order the receiver appointed by him to hand over the possession of the subject of dispute to the receiver appointed by the Civil Court and shall thereafter discharge the receiver appointed by him b may make such other incidental or consequential orders as may be just
 It is obvious from sub section 1 of Section 146 that the Magistrate is given power to attach the subject of dispute until the competent Court has determined the rights of the parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to the possession there or
The determination by a competent Court of the rights of the parties spoken of there has not necessarily to be a final determination
The determination may be even tentative at the interim stage when the competent Court passes an order of interim injunction or appoints a receiver in respect of the subject matter of the dispute pending the final decision in the suit
The moment the competent Court does so even at the interim stage the order of attachment passed by the Magistrate has to come to an end
Otherwise there will be inconsistency 8 between the order passed by the civil court and the order of attachment passed by the Magistrate
The proviso to sub section 1 of Section 146 itself takes cognizance of such a situation when it states that Magistrate may withdraw the attachment at any time if he is satisfied that there is no longer any likelihood of any breach of peace with regard to the subject of dispute 
When a civil Court passes an order of injunction or receiver it is the civil Court which is seized of the matter and any breach of its order can be punished by it according to law
Hence on the passing of the interlocutory order by the civil Court it can legitimately be said that there is no longer any likelihood of the breach of the peace with regard to the subject of dispute
The fact that the Magistrate can withdraw the order of attachment passed by him even during the pendency of the dispute in the civil Court is made further clear by the provisions of sub section 2 of Section 146
When the civil Court appoints a receiver the order of attachment passed by the Magistrate necessarily gives way to the order of the Civil Court appointing the receiver
It is only when the civil Court does not appoint the receiver that the Magistrate may make arrangements for looking after the property or even appoint a receiver himself However even when such a receiver is appointed and the civil Court subsequently appoints a receiver of its own the Magistrate has to order the receiver appointed by him to hand over the possession of the subject in dispute to the receiver appointed by the civil Court and discharge the receiver appointed by him
He has also to pass such other incidental or consequential orders as he thinks just
Such order may include an order of withdrawal of the attachment in view of the seizure of the matter by the civil Court and the consequent want of apprehension of breach of the peace
It is therefore not correct to say as held by the High Court that the property continues to remain under attachment of the Magisterial order till the rights of the parties are decided finally by the competent Court of law
That appears to be the purport of the High Court s order since in the present case the appellate civil Court has already passed an order of injunction against the 1st Respondent and her husband by virtue of which the possession continues to be with the appellants
In this view of the matter the Magistrate had not erred in withdrawing the attachment by his order dated 17th October 1978
For both these reasons the appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the High Court is set aside
It is necessary to add that the suit as filed by the Appellants is only for a permanent injunction
The appellants must amend the plaint for claiming also the declaration of their title to the property in question
NPV Apppeal allowed


Summary:
These petitions relate to child employment prevalence of contract labour system and the non implementation of 
This Court considered the petitions and appointed a Trust viz Society for Community Organisation Trust for conducting appropriate investigation and to submit a report
The Trust submitted its report which was then circulated to the Respondent State Government and the beedi manufacturers
On the direction of this Court for formulating a scheme two Schemes cameto be formulated one by the State Govern ment and the other by the petitioners
This Court directed that the terms should be settled for one Scheme to be accept ed by the Court and given time to the Union of India to respond to the same
Union of India filed certain objec tions
Rejecting the objections and disposing of the petitions this Court 358 HELD 11 The Beedi and Cigar Workers Condition of Employment Rules 1968 should be strictly implemented and once that is done the evil of not furnishing the books to the home workers would be eradicated
361 D E 2
An establishment of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner with full equipment for the purpose of imple mentation of the Statute should be located within the area and the Regional provident Fund Commissioner should have directions to enforce the Act in all aspects
This estab lishment should start functioning within three months from now
361 E F 3
The labour laws as also the should be strictly enforced so that the workers get their legitimate dues and the conditions of employment improve
361 F G 4
Tobacco manufacturing has indeed health hazards
Child labour in this trade should therefore be prohibited as far as possible and employment of child labour should be stopped either immediately or in a phased manner to be decided by the State Government but within a period not exceeding three years from now
The provisions of Child Labour Abolition Act 1986 should be strictly implemented
361 G 11 5
The Union Government is directed to look into the aspect whether contract labour system is indispensable in this trade and take its final decision one way or the other within six months from now
362 A 6
Beedi trade is a flourishing one and exploitation of labour is rampant in this trade
A governmental labour establishment should he located in the area with full com plement to answer the requiretenants of the matter
362 F 7
Sincc Beedi manufacturing process is carried more out side the factory than within the system of maintaining the registers as a regulating practice has become necessary
Great care should there fore be taken to ensure the maintenance of the register system as the bulk of the employees outside the factories can be regulated through the record maintained in the registers
362 C 8
The and the Beedi 359 Workers Welfare Fund Act 1976 which contain beneficial provision should be implemented in the true spirit and since they are legislations of the Central Government the machin ery of the Central Government should be made operational in the area
362 D 9
It should be ensured that pass hooks are maintained in the names of actual workers
362 E 10
The Welfare Fund should be properly administered and in the case of death of workman appropriate assistance should be extended out of the Fund quickly
362 E F 11
In view of the health hazard involved in the manu facturing process every worker including children if employed should be insured for a minimum amount of Rs50000 and the premium should be paid by the employer and the incidence should not be passed on to the workman
362 F 12
The implementation of the scheme within the State in an effective manner would require to be supervised by an independent external agency
The Tamil Nadu State Legal Aid