INTERPRETATION OF SOCIAL WELFARE LEGISLATIONS

“Beneficial construction is a tendency rather than a rule”*

Abstract: A beneficial statute is a class of statute which seeks to confer benefit on individuals or
class of persons by relieving them of onerous obligation under contracts entered into by them or
which tend to protect persons against oppressive act from individuals with whom they stand in
certain relations. The established principle in the construction of such statutes is that there should
not be any narrow interpretation1. The court should attempt to be generous towards the persons on
whom benefit should be conferred. When a statute is interpreted liberally to give the widest possible
meaning to it, it is called beneficent construction. Beneficial construction is an interpretation to
secure remedy to the victim who is unjustly denied of relief. The interpretation of a statue should be
done in such a way that mischief is suppressed and remedy is advanced.

Keywords: social welfare legislation – liberal interpretation - beneficial construction – legislative

intent

Introduction:

Courts continually declare that the exercise of interpretation is aimed at realizing the
intention of the legislature. When the legislative intent aims to provide benefit then the courts
read the text differently from how they read it when the intention is to effect deprivation. It is
the duty of the court to interpret a provision, especially a beneficial provision, liberally so as
to give it a wide meaning rather than a restrictive meaning which would negate the very
object of the rule2. But there is no set principle of construction that a beneficial legislation
should always be retrospectively operated although such legislation is either expressly or by
necessary intendment not made retrospective. Further, the rule of interpretation can only be
resorted to without doing any violence to the language of the statute3. There are different kind
of legislations which receive beneficent construction. Laws which are enacted with the object
of promoting general welfare and facing urgent social demands receive beneficial
legislations. Examples of statutes include The Factories Act, Industrial Disputes Act etc. In
the case of Hindustan Level Ltd v Ashok Vishnu Kate4, the court held that in a case related to
prevention of unfair labour practice, during interpreting social welfare legislation, a
construction should be placed on the relevant provisions which furthers the purpose for which
such legislation was enacted.

*Maxwell
1
G.Granville Sharp, Maxwell on interpretation of statutes, pg 68 (10 th ed. 1953),Sweet & Maxwell
Limited,London
2
Madan singh shekhawat v. Union of India (1999) 6 SCC 459
3
Transport Corpn of India v Employees’ State Insurance Corpn & Anr (200) 1 SCC 426
4
(1995) SCC 1385 (L&S)
Justification for the topic:

A beneficial piece of legislation has to be construed in its correct perspective so as to adhere

to the legislative intent underlying its enactment. When there is a possibility of two views a
construction should be placed on the relevant provisions which furthers the purpose for which
such legislation was enacted. Therefore the need for liberal interpretation of social and
welfare legislations is must with necessary exceptions.

Research objective:

The main objective of the research is to study and analyse the interpretation of social and
welfare legislations in the light of famous cases decided. The researcher will also be
analysing whether a liberal interpretation of welfare legislations is to be adhered to under all
circumstances, if yes, what are the drawbacks because of such liberal interpretation and if no,
what are the exceptions for giving such welfare legislations a narrow or restrictive meaning.
The researcher will also be discussing about the retrospective application of social welfare
legislations and discuss judiciary views while interpreting such legislations and why these
legislations are liberally interpreted but taxing statues are interpreted strictly.

Research questions:

1. Whether there are rules for the interpretation of remedial statues and can the text of the
statute be influenced so as to meet the purpose of the welfare legislation?
2. Whether the courts are amenable to defer the purpose of the legislation provided the text
is read as whole can sustain such a meaning?
3. Is there a possibility of retrospective application of social welfare legislations
4. Whether the liberal construction by judiciary amount to judicial activism or judicial over
reach?

Hypothesis:

The US and Australian courts have strived to protect the rights of the marginalized and
vulnerable, the Indian courts have also started recognising them as is seen through various
judgments. But it must be recognised that the principle of beneficent construction cannot be a
rule but only a principle therefore Indian courts are also looking into more principles of
natural law and hence the interpretation of welfare legislations is so far maintained a fair
balance between its liberal interpretation and exceptions.

Research methodology:

The researcher will be doing a doctrinal and the main focus is to understand the main purpose
of to liberal interpretation of social welfare legislations (labour legislations). Therefore this
research work is intended to make an analytical study of the interpretation of social welfare
legislations by various precedents. The present study is based on secondary data. The
secondary data is obtained from published and, relevant literature. The researcher has also
referred to various books and articles and internet sites.

Literature review:

1. Article: The Judicial Road to Social Welfare

Author: Kurland, Philip B.

(Citation: Kurland, Philip B. “The Judicial Road to Social Welfare.” Social Service Review, vol.
48, no. 4, 1974, pp. 481–493., www.jstor.org/stable/30015154)

This article examines the role of the judiciary in the last fifty years in the development of
social welfare in US. The author concludes that there is no likely judicial road to social
welfare reform. The courts have not found in the Constitution a right to social welfare. Their
role has been, and will probably continue to be, limited to ensuring that social welfare
legislation is fairly interpreted and applied. The researcher will taking this into consideration
compare the interpretation of social welfare legislations in other jurisdictions and try to prove
that the Indian judiciary has to a large extent interpreted these welfare legislations in the
public interest.

2. Book: The Construction of Statutes

Author: Crawford
CRAWFORD, THE CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES (1940), Third edition, Vol III
Thomas Law Book Company,pages 1008 pp 492, 494.

The author in this book says that remedial statues are that rectify defects and abridge
superfluities in the former law should be given liberal construction in order to effectuate the
purpose of the legislature or to advance the remedy intended or to accomplish the object
sought, and all matters fairly within the scope of such statute should be included even though
outside the letter, if within its spirit or reason. The researcher will based on this idea of
Crawford try to analyse how Indian welfare legislations have applied this rule of liberal
construction to their social and welfare legislations and the researcher further would raise a
contention that though there is a rule of liberal construction, according to the researcher after
reading few precedents by Indian judiciary the rule does not justify an extensions of statutes
scope beyond the contemplation of the legislature, even if the statue is purely remedial, and
liberal construction would produce a highly beneficial result.

3. Book: G. Granville Sharp, Maxwell on interpretation of statutes, pg 68 (10th ed.

1953),Sweet & Maxwell Limited, London

The author in this book says that the most universal and effectual way of discovering the true
meaning of a law, when the words are ambiguous is by considering the meaning and true
spirit of it or the cause which moved the legislators to enact it. Hence the researcher keeping
this in mind will analyse various judgements where the courts have interpreted the words on
the sole basis of legislative intent and establish that how Indian welfare legislations are
moving towards building a welfare state.

4. Book: MN Rao & Amita Dhanda, N.S Bindra’s, Interpretation of statutes 433(11th
edn Lexis Nexis Butterworths,2014) P669-686

In this book chapter 16 discusses about the interpretation of social and welfare legislations. It
is concluded that liberally constructing welfare or beneficent legislations the courts have
proceeded in different ways and have laid many principles on cases to case basis one such
rule is the Delhi HC interpretation of section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintainence Act
where the court has looked at the beneficent purpose of the legislation and let that purpose
determine what meaning should give to the text but the relationship with the text has to be
retained. Hence the researcher will analyse how these hard and fast rules are followed by the
Indian judiciary in its cases.

5. Article: Literally Interpreting the Law- Appraisal of the literal rule of interpretation
in India
Author: Alekhya Reddy
(Citation: Alekhya Reddy, Literally Interpreting the Law- Appraisal of the literal
rule of interpretation in India
 (http://www.manupatra.com/roundup/338/Articles/Literally%20interpreting%20th
e%20Law)
The author in this article briefly discusses about the rules of interpretation like the
mischief rule, golden rule and the literal rule and provides case laws under which such
rules have been applied. The researcher will also apply these rules as a part under chapter
3 and find out which one is the most suitable for the interpretation of social and welfare
statutes.
6. Journal: Law Mantra Online journal (ISSN 2321-6417)
Article: BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION
Author: Aditya Mishra
(Citation: Aditya Mishra, ”Beneficial construction”; Law Mantra Online journal
(ISSN 2321-6417) (http://lawmantra.co.in/beneficial-construction/)
The author says that beneficial Construction rule has been a part of Harmonious
construction for interpretation of the statutes. It is and advantageous rule of interpretation
for the members of the society which preserves them from any kind of hardships being
created through the law. The author has also discussed many case laws and concluded
that rules of interpretation are not just on paper and in fact they have been well
implemented in various cases while keeping in mind the “justice not denied”. Not
denying the fact that in few of the cases court must have been negligent to some extent in
this aspect but that would not mean that we should lose the faith and trust by encountering
those events. As it is the supreme authority of the nation whose sole aim is to grant
Justice by fair means in the interest of the society and their well-being. The researcher
will try to find out the loopholes in this literal construction and provide conclusions and
suggestions.

7. Journal Article: Beneficial Construction

Author: P.D.Kaushik
Citation: Judicial training and Research Institutes journal March,1996
http://ijtr.nic.in/articles/art4

The author in this article discusses about the rule of strict interpretation to be given to taxing
statues but also citing a case law of Motors association v J.K.Modi he saya that in a Taxing
Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment.
There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in,
nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used. However while
construing the provisions of a taxing statute, if two views are possible the view which is
favourable to assesses must be accepted. The researcher while dealing in a chapter by
comparing the change in rules of interpretation rules between taxing statutes and welfare
statutes will try to analyse why is there a change in interpretation for every statue and is the
purpose well served after apply the rules of interpretation to these statutes.

8. Article: Remedial Legislation

Author: Rudolph H. Heimanson

Citation: Rudolph H. Heimanson, Remedial Legislation, 46 Marq. L. Rev. 216 (1962).

Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol46/iss2/8

The author in this article says that legislative bodies have the power to change old rules of law
nevertheless when they fail to act, it is the duty of the courts to bring the law into accordance with
present standards. The responsibility for law reform is shared by the legislatures and the courts. The
author further says that we look for the intent of a statute, because each statute intends to fulfill
a meaning. The researcher from this has inferred that statutory intent is not necessarily identical
with the legislative intent. Statutory intent is the purpose and reason of the law, as shown by
the text. If the text, is unambiguous it, reveals a "plain meaning," no further speculation is
invoked. In case of doubt and ambiguity, inquiry into the surrounding circumstances may
disclose the exact statutory intent which is what happens in the interpretation of welfare
legislations.

9. Case Law: Maruti Udyog Ltd. v Remlap (2005) 2 SCC 638

Bench: S.B. Sinha Bench: N. Santosh Hegde, S.B. Sinha
Citation: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/261773/

It it is important to note that the principle of beneficial construction has to be applied with a
few safeguards. It can only be applied without “rewriting or doing violence to the
enactment”. When the language is clear and explicit, it leaves little scope for any bending of
interpretation. Sympathy cannot be a sole principle guiding interpretation. In the Maruti
Udyog case, the Constitution Bench held that no provisions of act provided for absorption of
contract labour on issuance of a notification under Section 10 prohibiting employment of
contract labour. In the Employees State Insurance Act 1948, Section 53 provided that an
insured person or his dependents will not be entitled to ‘any compensation or damages’ under
the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923 or any other law for the time being in force or
otherwise in respect of an employment injury. This was held to bar even claim for
compensation of damages in Torts although the Act is a beneficial legislation.

10. Case Law: B Shah v Presiding Officer, Labour Court AIR 1978 SC 12
BENCH: J Singh , Bench: Singh, Jaswant
Citation: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/450185/

In the landmark case of B Shah v Presiding Officer, Labour Court, court applied beneficent
rule of construction in construing section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which makes
the employer liable to pay maternity benefit to woman worker at the rate of average daily
wage for the period of her actual absence immediately preceding and including the day of her
delivery and for six weeks immediately following that day. The court held that Sundays must
also be included and held that the Act was intended not only to subsist but also make up for
her dissipated energy and take care of child. The Act was read in the light of Article 42.

CASE LAWS:

1. Case: Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation

Bench: Bench: Chandrachud, Y.V. (Cj), Fazalali, Syed Murtaza, Tulzapurkar, V.D.,
Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J), Varadarajan, A. (J).

The majority decision of the Supreme Court in this case was based on the
humanistic approach of the judges and the Apex Court stepped into the
activist role. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the slum dwellers
must get the alternative shelter if they are evicted from the
pavements.Although, the eviction orders were held to be valid under
article 14 and 19 of the Constitution. Infact, the right to life was
once again enlarged to engulf the right to livelihood as being a part
of liberty of an individual. The decision of the Court also focused on
the concept of the welfare state and reliance though not expressly but
impliedly was placed on the Directive Principles of the State Policies
under the Constitution. All judges agreed to the decision.

2. Case: Workmen Employed In Associated v Associated Rubber Industry Ltd, IR 1986 SC

1, 1985 (51) FLR 478
 Bench: O C Reddy, V Khalid
Both the judges opined that it is the duty of the court, in every case where ingenuity is
expended to avoid taxing and welfare legislations, to get behind the smoke-screen and
discover the true state of affairs. The court is not to be satisfied with form and leave well
alone the substance of a transaction. The courts must be vigilant to ensure that benefits
conferred by welfare legislation must not be defeated by subtle devices. It is duty of the
court to get behind the smoke screen and discover the true state of affairs. It can go
behind the form and see the substance of the transaction
3. Case law:
Bench: The Lord Chancellor (Lord Halsbury), Lord Watson, Lord Bramwell, Lord
Hobhouse, Lord Morris, and Lord Shand.
In the United States of Huntington v Attrill , the Supreme Court said that whether a
statute is remedial or penal ‘depends upon the question whether its purpose is to punish
the offense against the public justice of the state, or to afford a private remedy to a person
injured by the wrongful act’. Liberal construction has been allowed in cases relating to
providing, regulating worker benefits, antitrust, securities, and unfair competition
legislation. The remedial purpose canon is also found in cases interpreting legislation
designed to protect and promote public health and safety. The canon has also been used to
further social well-being of general public by protecting individuals against race, gender,
age and disability discrimination. n the Appeal Court the judges were equally divided in
opinion. Burton and Maclennan, JJ.A., held that the question whether the action in New
York was for a penalty or not was concluded by the decisions of the New York Courts.
Hagarty, C.J., while agreeing that no action is maintainable on the judgment of a foreign
State in respect of a penalty inflicted by the laws of such State, dissented from the
decisions of the New York Courts, and held that the liability imposed by the statute in
question was not a liability in the nature of a penalty. Osler, J.A., agreeing with the
conclusion of Hagarty, C.J., held that the liability in question could not be regarded as a
penal liability within the meaning of the principles of international law in question, and
consequently that the action was maintainable. He was of opinion, however, that no
action would have been maintainable in the Canadian Courts upon the cause of action, in
respect of which the judgment was given in the New York Supreme Court.

Sir Horace Davey, Q.C., Finlay, Q.C., and Pollard, for the appellant, contended that the
liability imposed by the New York State Act was not a liability in the nature of a penalty
 within the meaning of those provisions of international law which prohibit courts of
justice from enforcing penalties inflicted by the laws of a foreign State.

4. Case law: Union Of India vs Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors

Bench: H. K. Sema, Markandey Katju

Tne of the leading examples of liberal construction is in the interpretation of Section 123 of
Railways Act 1989 which defined ‘untoward accident’ to include ‘accidental falling of a
passenger from a train carrying passengers’. The question in contention before the court was
whether ‘untoward accident’ will cover the instance of a passenger who fell down and died
while trying to board the train. In deciding the case, the court said that there are couple of
interpretations of ‘accidental falling’; first one being that it only applies when a person is
inside the train while second includes a situation where person is trying to board a train and
falls down. The relevant provision was deemed as a beneficial piece of legislation and hence
received liberal and wide interpretation and hence the definition was expanded to include a
passenger who fell off the train in the process of boarding it.

5. Case law : State Of Karnataka vs Vishwabharathi House Building (2003) 2 SCC 41

Bench: V.N. Khare Cj, K.G. Balakrishnan, S.B. Sinha

In case of a social benefit oriented legislation like the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the
provisions are construed as broadly as possible. Interpreting a section of the Act, it was held
that parents who hire the services of a hospital and their child for whom the service are hired
are both consumers and can independently claim damage. The clause regarding jurisdiction
has been liberally interpreted to empower the consumer for a to entertain claims irrespective
of whether other courts or for a have jurisdiction to entertain claims unless jurisdiction is
expressly barred. Further, the liberal interpretation has been taken in holding that although
the forum is a judicial authority, they are not hampered by section 34 of Arbitration Act and
are not obliged to stay proceedings before them because the Act provides a cheap and speedy
remedy to the consumer

Name: D.Ruchi Sharma (BC0140049)