Appeal No 266 NT of 1980
From the Judgment and Order dt 14121979 of the Allahabad High Court in Sales Tax Rev No 214 of 1979
Harish N Salve PP Singh and Ms Meenakshi Grover for the Appellant
RC Verma and Ms section Mukherjee for RB Misra for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by YOGESHWAR DAYAL J
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court passed in Sales Tax Revision No 214 of 1979 dated 14th December 1979
By the impugned judgment the High Court set aside the order of the Judge Revisions Sales Tax UP Lucknow holding that the Phosphorous Bronze which the assesseeappellant herein have been manufacturing fell within the ambit of Notification No ST II 333X 10121971 dated the 15th November 1971 issued in exercise of the powers under the second proviso to sub section 2 of section 3 A of the UP Sales Tax Act 1948 UP Act No
XV of 1948 and took the view that the relevant entry at serial No 2a of the said Notification did not cover the goods prepared by the appellant herein and was thus liable to be taxed as an unclassified commodity at the rate of 35The relevant entry reads as under SI
No Description of goods Rate of tax 1    2 a Copper tin nickel or zinc 1 per centm or any other alloy containing any of these metals only
b   
The contention on behalf of the appellant is that Phosphorous Bronze manufactured and marketed by them is covered under the aforesaid entry
According to the appellant the said Phosphorous Bronze is made of tin and copper only
It is further contended on behalf of the appellant that the small quantity of Phosphorous is used to deoxidise the metal and as such the Phosphorous is not an 721 essential substance of Phosphorous Bronze
It is however admitted case of the parties that without the use of Phosphorous the Phosphorous Bronze cannot be produced and certain quantity of Phosphorous still remains in the Phosphorous Bronze
The contention of the respondent is that Phosphorous Bronze is an alloy containing not only the metals mentioned in the aforesaid entry but Phosphorous also and as such it is not covered under the aforesaid entry
The words other alloy containing any of these metals only mean that the alloy made of these metals ie copper tin nickel or zinc only and that alone is covered under the said entry
It was submitted that if any other metal or substance is included in such an alloy the same would not be covered under the aforesaid entry
A similar question arose in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax U P vs Hindustan Metal Works Hathras reported in 1964 15 Sales Tax Cases 97 wherein it was held as under The Notification exempts tax on sale of alloys prepared from the solution of two or more of the metals enumerated therein
On account of the word only the sale of an alloy prepared from the solution of two or more of those metals and some other substance or substances would not be exempt from tax
The assesse sold an alloy called phosphorous bronze which was prepared from the solution of copper tin phosphorous and lead
Phosphorous and lead are not mentioned in the notification
They are deliberately added by the assessee as per agreement between the parties
The sale is therefore prime facie liable to be taxed
 We were referred to various dictionary meanings of the words Phosphorous Bronze which have been noticed by the learned Judge dealing with case in the High Court
We are really concerned with the interpretation of the entry
The emphasis in the entry is either it should be pure copper tin nickel or zinc and if it is an alloy containing two or more metals it must be an alloy containing these metals only
The expression only is very material for understanding the meaning of the entry
Since the alloy in dispute contains Phosphorous may be in a very small quantity it cannot fall within entry 2a of the aforesaid Notification
The appeal consequently fails and is dismissed with costs
UR Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The petitioners claimed to he casual labourers of the South Eastern Railway appointed between 1964 69 and retrenched between 1975 78
They prayed 1 for inclusion of their names in the live casual register and reemployment according to their seniority and 2 for restraining the filling of vacancies from the open market
They relied on two circulars issued by the Railway Board laying down guidelines for the recruitment retrenchment and employment of casual labourers
They also relied on two judgments of this court in 1985 and 1987 which directed the preparation of a scheme and absorption of casual labourers in accordance with their scheme
A scheme was framed in 1987 for employing casual labourers retrenched before 1981 subject to demonstrating suitability before 31st March 1987
In 1990 the petitioners made their representation to be considered
The questions before this court were a whether the petitioners were entitled as a matter of law to reemployment and b if they had lost their right if any due to delay
752 Dismissing the petitions this court HELD 1
Right of casual labourers employed in projects to be reemployed in railways has been recognised both by the Railways and this Court
But the petitioners only sent in a vague representation and there was absence of positive material that they were in fact appointed and working as claimed
754 G 2
A writ is issued by this court in favour of a person who has some right and not for the sake of a roving enquiry leaving scope for manoeuver
Delay itself deprives a person of big remedy available in law
In the absence of any fresh cause of action of any legislation a person who has lost his remedy by lapse of time loses his right as well
755 A 4 In any event more than 15 years have expired and a host of others who have in the meantime become eligible and entitled to claim to be employed would he deprived if the petitioners  claim were accepted
755 B