DHARMSHASTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

JABALPUR

SUBJECT: INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

TOPIC: ANALYSIS OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS FEMALE

WORKERS (MUSTER ROLL) IN LIGHT OF LIBERAL RULE

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Ms. Swati Parmar BABLU SOLANKI
(Assistant Professor of Law) SEMESTER: V
ENROLLMENT NO:
BAL/025/20
INTRODUCTION
As per doctrine of Separation of powers, judiciary is responsible for interpretation of laws drafted
by legislature. For this, Judiciary has laid down various ground rules, principles and methods for
maintaining authenticity and uniformity in interpreting legislative intent.

The basic and prominent rule of interpretation is literal rule, which professes that words of a statute
should be interpreted as it is. Hence, when the words are susceptible to single meaning without
any ambiguity, then every effect should be given to it. Deviation from this rule is allowed only in
cases of ambiguity or when words are susceptible of more than one meaning. Any such deviation
falls under the definition of liberal rule of interpretation.1

Liberal construction suggests that the interpretation should be done liberally with the goal of
furthering the statute's intention or object. 2 Beneficial construction can be said to be a kind of
purposive approach to interpretation i.e. which promotes the purpose of the Act

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

Whenever there is any uncertainty or when two or more possible meanings could be given to the
word or phrase then it is the duty of the court, especially in case of beneficial legislations, to give
it a wide and just meaning rather than restrictive and absurd one. 4 This is the basis of the principle
of beneficial interpretation.

Beneficial legislation, as the name suggests, were created to confer rights, benefits, or entitlements
on certain groups of people or the general public. In case of any doubt in such social welfare and
remedial legislations, the doubt is generally resolved in the favour of person for whose benefit the
statute is enacted. 5 The nature of beneficial construction is remedial as it tends to suppress the

1
Justice GP Singh, PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, p. 129.
2
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES, STRICT versus LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION, TAXMANN, available at:
https://www.taxmann.com/post/blog/6732/interpretation-of-statutes-strict-versus-liberal-construction-case-law-
analysis/#distinction-between-strict-and-liberal-construction-of-statute
3
Sant Ram v. Rajinderlal AIR 1978 SC 1601.
4
Lalappa Lingappa v. L.V. Textiles Mills AIR 1981 SC 852.
5
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Hoogly Mills Co Ltd & Ors (2012) 2 SCC 489.
mischief and advance the remedy. Such construction is advised for resolving any ambiguity arising
in cases of beneficial legislation so that intention and objective of the legislation is met effectively.

However, such interpretation cannot be extended beyond the limits and scope of the legislation. In
the case of Bull v. Attorney General6, the Australian Court ruled that:

“If legislation is beneficial in nature and its provisions are ambiguous or alternative
interpretations of relevant provisions are suggested, 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.”

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 later is more consistent with the object of the
legislation.7 Moreover, courts cannot extend any provision to those whom legislature did not
contemplate to include.8

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS FEMALE WORKERS (MUSTER ROLL) 9

In this case the question that arose was whether women workers employed on muster roll basis
can avail benefits under Maternity Benefit Act 1961? The court adopted beneficial and/or
purposive approach and answered in 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 “woman employed, whether directly or through any
agency, for wages in any establishment”. Further, Section 5 of the Act clearly states that a woman
worker who is expecting a child is eligible for maternity benefits. The definition is clearly silent

6
Bull v Attorney-General (NSW) (1913) 17 CLR 370.
7
Id.
8
Dedappa v. National Insurance (2008) 2 SCC 595.
9
(2017) 4 SCC 498.
about whether “woman employed” includes those woman employed on contractual basis or muster
roll? In such situation, literal rule cannot be resorted to.

LORD DENNING opined that, the legislations cannot be drafted with the divine precision, hence
defects are meant to be there. In case of such defects, judges are ought to apply there 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”.10

B. Shah v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbator & Ors.11 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:

“in interpreting provisions of beneficial pieces of legislation like the one in hand which is intended
to achieve the object of doing social justice to women workers employed in the plantations and
which squarely fall within the purview of Article 42 of the Constitution, the beneficent rule of
construction which would enable the woman worker not only to subsist but also to make up her
dissipated energy, nurse her child, preserve her efficiency as a worker and maintain the level of
her previous efficiency and output has to be adopted by the Court.”

This has been reiterated in Dr. Ankita Baidya v. Union of India &Ors12, the Court noted that “the
Maternity Benefit Act, being in the nature of a piece of social welfare legislation, its reach and
sweep has to be as expansive as possible, rather than limited by any pedantic considerations of
word or phrase”.

The Supreme Court in Muster Role case rightly noted that Maternity Banefit Act does not
explicitly excludes women employed on muster roll from benefits under the Act. Hence, the Act

10
Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher 1949 (2) K.B. 481.
11
AIR 1978 SC 12.
12
W.P. (C) 8748/2018 & CM APPL.45209/2018.
being in the nature of beneficial legislation has to be read in a way to confer its benefit on all
women workers employed on whether regular or muster roll basis.

The court thus stressed on the fact that the provisions of the Act read with its Statement of Objects
and Reasons is in consonance with the Directive Principles of State Policy as set out in Article 39
and 42 of the Indian Constitution. The court recognised the hardships faced by a woman during
and post pregnancy and opined that the purpose of the Act is to provide all the facilities to working
woman in a dignified manner so that she may overcome the state of motherhood peacefully and
undeterred by the fear of being victimized for forced absence during pre-natal or post-natal period.

The court, herein, recognised that the mischief that the Act was enacted to shut down is hardship
faced by working woman who were compelled to work even during pregnancy. Hence, if the
purpose of the Act was such, then it can hardly be said that it excludes women employed on muster
roll basis from availing benefits under it. In such case giving a narrow and restrictive meaning to
the Act and depriving them of benefits under the Act. Any other interpretation would have been in
contrast to the actual objective of the legislation. Hence, the wide and liberal interpretation of the
court in this case was consistent within the principles of beneficial interpretation of statutes or
purposive construction.

CONCLUSION

Apex Court has held that statutory provisions be construed according to the ordinary, grammatical
and natural meaning of their language. If such construction has unpleasant consequences, “the
appeal must be to parliament and not to this court”. Yet, “justice is above all” has been the basic
theme in majority of judicial pronouncements. Whenever strict Interpretation resulted in unjust
situation, judges used their judicial sense to remedy it.

Over the time, judiciary has recognised that words in law should be given its ordinary and
grammatical meaning in the first instance. However, in case of ambiguity, the they must be
understood in a sense that they are in consistent with the purpose and object of the Act. Moreover,
in especially in cases of beneficial or remedial legislation courts have emphasized on adopting
liberal approach.