Beneficial Construction

Mahadeolal v. Administrator General of West Bengal,

AIR 1960 SC 936

 If in legislation, the general object of which is to benefit a particular

class of persons, any provision is ambiguous so that it is capable of
two meanings, one of which would preserve the benefit and another
which would take it away, the meaning which preserves it should be
adopted.
Dharwad district P.W.D Literate daily wage employees Assn. v. State
(1991) II LLJ 318 (S.C)

 The equal remuneration act, 1976 was enacted for providing equal pay for
equal work between men and women which is a part of the principle
“equal pay for equal work”.
 The daily rated and monthly rated employees in the state of Karnataka
are, therefore entitled to pay like regular employees.
 Beneficial statutes have sometimes been
called by the name of the social welfare
legislations and they are interpreted in such a
manner as would achieve the beneficial
object for which they have been enacted.
For example

 The Maternity benefit act, 1961 was enacted to regulate

the employment of women in certain establishments for
certain periods before and after child birth and to provide
for maternity benefit and other benefits.
 Doing social justice to women workers.
 If the natural meaning of the words used in a statute omit certain
cases, the words should not be so strained as to include the ones
omitted.
 But if the natural meaning of the words are not able to achieve the
object of the statute, extended meaning may be given to them if they
are capable of receiving that meaning.
 Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill Private Limited
AIR 2003 SC 511

 The supreme court observed that it is well settled that a

beneficial provision of legislation must be liberally
construed so as to fulfill the statutory purpose and not to
frustrate it.
B. SHAH v. LABOUR COURT, AIR 1978 SC
12
 HELD:- The maternity benefit act is intended to achieve the object
of doing social justice to women workers. Therefore in interpreting
the provisions of this act beneficial 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.
 Right to Payment of Maternity Benefit

Section 5

 Every woman shall be entitled to, and her employer shall be liable for, the payment of maternity
benefit at the rate of the AVERAGE DAILY WAGE for the period of her actual absence, that is to
say, the period immediately preceding the day of her delivery, the actual day of her delivery and
any period immediately following that day.

Period preceding day of Day of

delivery Delivery Period following delivery
 Section 5(2)
 No woman shall be entitled to maternity benefit unless she has
actually worked in an establishment of the employer from whom she
claims maternity benefit, for a period of not less than 80 days in the
twelve months immediately preceding the date of her expected
delivery.

Date of
80 days in 12 Months PRECEDING delivery
 Ram Bahadur Thakur (P.) Ltd. V. Chief Inspector of Plantation
(1989) II LLJ 20 (Ker)

 The period during which the woman worker was laid off should also be taken
into consideration for ascertaining the eligibility. During the lay-off period a
woman worker cannot be expected to have actually worked in the
establishment. So actual work for 160 days (Now 80) cannot be insisted as a
condition precedent for claiming the maternity benefit.
 Whether Sunday is to be counted while calculating maternity
benefit?
B Shah v. Labor Court, Coimbatore
(AIR 1978 SC 12)

Held:- In the context of Sub- section (1) and (3) of Section 5, the terms week has to be taken to signify a cycle of 7
days including Sundays.

SECTION 5(3):-The MAXIMUM PERIOD for which any woman shall be entitled to maternity benefit shall be twelve
weeks , 6 WEEKS UPTO and Including the Day of Delivery and 6 WEEKS immediately following that day:-

6 WEEKS Day of 6 WEEKS 12 WEEKS

Delivery
 Spring meadows Hospital v. H. Ahluwalia
AIR 1988 SC 1801
 Applying the rule of beneficial construction the Supreme court held that if
the parents have hired the services of a hospital for the benefit of their
child they and the child can maintain independent actions against the
hospital for deficient services.
 Indian Medical Association v. V.P Santa
AIR 1995 SC 550
 The supreme court held that service rendered by a medical doctor is a service
within the meaning of Section 2 (o) of the Consumer protection act.

Section 2(o) CPA

“service” means service of any description which is made available to potential  facilities in
connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other
energy, board or lodging or both, [housing construction,] entertainment, amusement or the
purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of
charge or under a contract of personal service.