“DHARMSHASTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

JABALPUR”

SUBJECT: INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

TOPIC: ANALYSIS OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS FEMALE

WORKERS (MUSTER ROLL) AIR 2000 SC 1274 IN LIGHT OF LIBERAL RULE

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Ms. Swati Parmar Akshay Pal
(Assistant Professor of Law) SEMESTER: VI
ENROLLMENT NO: BAL/015/21
INTRODUCTION
The court interprets legislation enacted by the legislature in accordance with the theory of
separation of powers. The Judiciary has established a number of guidelines, precepts, and
techniques to ensure consistency and authenticity in the interpretation of legislative meaning.

The literal rule, which maintains that a statute's terms should be understood literally, is the most
fundamental and well-known rule of interpretation. Therefore, all consequences should be applied
when a term may have just one meaning and is therefore clear.

BENEFICIAL INTERPRETATION: MEANING AND SCOPE

K. IYER J said "Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man whom you may have seen, and
ask yourself, if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him”3

In cases when a term or phrase is ambiguous or has several conceivable interpretations, the court
has an obligation to interpret it broadly and justly, rather than absurdly and restrictively,
particularly when it comes to beneficial legislation. This forms the cornerstone of the beneficial
interpretation idea.

As the name implies, beneficiary laws were designed to provide particular individuals or the public
at large privileges, advantages, or entitlements. When a question arises over social welfare and
corrective legislation, it is often settled in favor of the individual for whose benefit the law was
passed. Beneficial building is remedial in nature since it seeks to suppress the

problem and provide the solution. It is recommended to use this kind of construction to clear up
any ambiguities that may arise in beneficial legislation, ensuring that the law's goals and intentions
are successfully fulfilled.
However, such interpretation cannot be extended beyond the limits and scope of the legislation. In
the case of Bull v. Attorney General1, the Australian Court ruled that:

"The interpretation which gives force to the relief sought as the object of the legislation or
provisions, consistent with the subject matter and the fair meaning of the language of the
provisions, is the one which will be adopted by the Courts if legislation is beneficial in nature and
its provisions are ambiguous or alternative interpretations of relevant provisions are suggested.”

When the words of the law are clear and unambiguous, the court cannot ignore the plain meaning
and give any other interpretation even when the latter is more consistent with the object of the
legislation.2 Moreover, courts cannot extend any provision to those whom the legislature did not
contemplate to include.3

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS FEMALE WORKERS (MUSTER ROLL)4

In this case, the question that arose was whether women workers employed on a muster roll basis
could avail of benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act 1961. The court adopted a beneficial and/or
purposive approach and answered in the affirmative.

ANALYSIS

Maternity Benefit Act is a “beneficial legislation”, thus it is meant to be generous. Applying the
basic rule of beneficial construction, the provisions of this act must be construed in the widest
possible way whenever there is any ambiguity in its construction. This is exactly what was done
in the Muster Roll case.

Section 3(o) of the Act defines “woman” as "A woman employed for wages in any establishment,
whether directly or through any agency". Furthermore, the Act's Section 5 makes it quite clear that
a working woman who is expecting a child is entitled to maternity benefits. The definition is clearly
silent

1
Bull v Attorney-General (NSW) (1913) 17 CLR 370.
2
Id.
3
Dedappa v. National Insurance (2008) 2 SCC 595.
4
(2017) 4 SCC 498.
about whether “woman employed” includes those women employed on a contractual basis or
muster roll? In such a situation, the literal rule cannot be resorted to.

LORD DENNING opined that, the legislation cannot be drafted with divine precision, hence
defects are meant to be there. In case of such defects, judges ought to apply their judicial mind and
look into the intention of legislature considering not only the language of the statutes but also the
social conditions prevalent at the time of its making and the mischief that it sought to remedy.
“A JUDGE MUST NOT ALTER THE MATERIAL OF WHICH IT IS WOVEN, BUT HE CAN
AND SHOULD IRON OUT THE CREASES”.5

B. Shah v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore & Ors.6 is a landmark judgment wherein
the court interpreted the term "week" in sub-section (1) and (3) of S. 5 read with S. 2 (1), 3 (n) and
4 of the Maternity Benefits Act. The court while adopting the liberal approach to its interpretation
held that, “week” would include even Sundays for the purpose to benefit under the Act. The thus
ruled that:

The Court must adopt a beneficent rule of construction that would enable women workers to not
only survive but also replenish their lost energy, care for their children, maintain their productivity
as workers, and restore their previous level of efficiency and output. This rule would apply when
interpreting provisions of beneficial legislation such as the one under consideration, which aims
to achieve social justice for women workers employed in plantations and falls under Article 42 of
the Constitution.

This has been reiterated in Dr. Ankita Baidya v. Union of India &Ors7, The Court said that "the
Maternity Benefit Act's reach and sweep have to be as expansive as possible, rather than limited
by any pedantic considerations of word or phrase, being like a piece of social welfare legislation."

5
Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher 1949 (2) K.B. 481.
6
AIR 1978 SC 12.
7
W.P. (C) 8748/2018 & CM APPL.45209/2018.
The Maternity Benefit Act does not specifically exclude women working on the muster roster from
receiving benefits under the Act, as the Supreme Court correctly pointed out in the Muster Role
case.

The court thus stressed the fact that the provisions of the Act read with its Statement of Objects
and Reasons aligns with the Directive Principles of State Policy as set out in Articles 39 and 42 of
the Indian Constitution. The court acknowledged the challenges that women face both during and
after pregnancy and stated that the Act's goal is to give working women access to all the amenities
in a dignified way so they can transition into motherhood amicably and without being deterred by
the fear of being victimized for being forced to miss work during the prenatal or postnatal period.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court has ruled that the usual, grammatical, and natural interpretation of a statute's
language should be used to interpret it. If there are unfavorable effects from such an interpretation,
"the appeal must be to parliament and not to this court." Nonetheless, the common theme in the
vast majority of court declarations has been "justice is above all." Judges used their judicial
judgment to address unfair situations that arose from rigorous interpretation.

Over the time, judiciary has recognised that words in law should be given its ordinary and
grammatical meaning in the first instance.