Beneficial Construction

Rule of Beneficial Construction

Beneficial construction involves giving the widest meaning possible to the statutes. When there are two or more possible ways of interpreting a section or a word, the meaning which gives relief and protects the benefits which are purported to be given by the legislation, should be chosen. A beneficial statute has to be construed in its correct perspective so as to fructify the legislative intent. Although beneficial legislation does receive liberal interpretation, the courts try to remain within the scheme and not extend the benefit to those not covered by the scheme. It is also true that once the provision envisages the conferment of benefit limited in point of time and subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions, their non-compliance will have the effect of nullifying the benefit. There should be due stress and emphasis to Directive Principles of State Policy and any international convention on the subject. Beneficial Construction of statutes have enormously played an important role in the development and beneficial interpretation of socio – economic legislations and have always encouraged the legislators to make more laws in favor of the backward class of people. Beneficial Construction in Socio – Economic legislations Socio-economic legislation which is aimed at social or economic policy changes, the interpretation should not be narrow. Justice Krishna Iyer in a case relating to agrarian reforms observed that “the judiciary is not a mere umpire but also an active catalyst in the constitutional scheme”. In the case of Sant Ram v Rajinderlal, the Supreme Court said that welfare legislation must be interpreted in a third World perspective favoring the weaker and poor class. It has also been laid down in the case of labor legislation that courts should not stick to grammatical constructions but also have regard to teleological purpose and protective intendment of the legislation. Interpretation of labor legislations should be done by the courts with more concern with the colour, the context and the content of the statute rather than its literal import. Industrial Disputes Act 1947 is one of welfare statute which intends to bring about peace and harmony between management and labour in an industry and improve the service conditions of

industrial workers which in will turn accelerate productive activity of the country resulting in its prosperity. As a result the prosperity of the country in turn will help to improve the conditions of the workmen. Therefore this statute should be interpreted in such a way that it advances the object and the purpose of the legislation and gives it a full meaning and effect so that the ultimate social objective is achieved. The courts while interpreting labour laws have always stressed on the doctrine of social justice as enshrined in the Preamble of Constitution. Beneficial Construction – A tendency rather than a rule It is said by Maxwell, that Beneficial Construction is a tendency and not a rule. The reason is that this principle is based on human tendency to be fair, accommodating, and just. Instead of restricting the people from getting the benefit of the statute, Court tends to include as many classes as it can while remaining faithful to the wordings of the statute. For example, in the case of Alembic Chemical Works v Workman, an industrial tribunal awarded more number of paid leaves to the workers than what Section 79(1) of Factories Act recommended. This was challenged by the appellant. SC held that the enactment being welfare legislation for the workers, it had to be beneficially constructed in the favor of worker and thus, if the words are capable of two meanings, the one that gives benefit to the workers must be used. When a statute is meant for the benefit of a specific class, and if a word in the statute is capable of two meanings, one which would preserve the benefits and one which would not, then the meaning that would preserve the benefits must be adopted and shall be followed by the court of law. It is important to note that omissions will not be supplied by the court. Only when multiple meanings are possible, can the court shall pick the beneficial one. Thus, where the court has to choose between a wider mean that carries out the objective of the legislature better and a narrow meaning, then it usually chooses the former meaning carrying out the objective of the legislation. Similarly, when the language used by the legislature fails to achieve the objective of a statute, an extended meaning could be given to it to achieve that objective, if the language is fairly susceptible to the extended meaning. Limitation on the application of Beneficial Construction If on the application of the rule of beneficial construction, the court finds that it is doing complete justice and delivering a fair judgment then there is no question of why should not such

rule is applied? But there are certain restrictions which the court has to take care of which at the time of application have to be adhered to – 1. Where the courts find that by the application of the rule of beneficial construction, it would be re legislating a provision of statute either by substituting, adding or altering any provision of the act. 2. Where any word in a statute confers to a single meaning only. Then the courts should refrain from applying the rule of benevolent construction to the statute. 3. When there is no ambiguity in a provision of a statute so construed. If the provision is plain, unambiguous and does not give rise to any doubt, the rule of beneficial construction cannot be applied. 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. The policy of a democratic Government should run in conjunction with the dynamic interpretation offered by the courts. The courts exist for the society and in the event the courts feel the requirement in accordance with principles of justice, equity and good conscience, courts must rise up to the occasion to do complete justice and meet expectation of the people.