AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Markandey Katju, C.J.—This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 22.9.2004. Heard
the learned counsel for the appellant.
The respondent is a widow. Her late husband was a driver in the service of the appellant Corporation, who had been appointed in 1979. He
had some heart ailment due to which he was compulsorily retired on medical grounds by order dated 6.12.1995. Thereafter, on a representation
made by him to the Corporation a settlement u/s 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act was reached under which he was re-employed as a mazdoor
trainee by order dated 6.2.1996. However, four days thereafter i.e. on 10.2.1996 at the age of 44 he passed away. He was the only bread-winner
of the family and he left behind him his widow (respondent) and two daughters.
The Corporation refused to give compassionate appointment to the widow (respondent) taking a technical view of the matter. Learned counsel
for the appellant Corporation relied on G.O. Ms. No. 680 Transport Department dated December, 1977 and urged that under the said G.O. the
respondent could not get compassionate appointment.
We do not agree with this submission. It must be understood that the aforesaid G.O. is a piece of beneficial legislation and hence should be
liberally construed. There is no doubt that the respondent''s husband had worked in the service of the appellant Corporation for 16 years and
thereafter he developed heart ailment and died. Before his death he has been compulsorily retired by order dated 6.12.1995 due to his ailment, but
on a representation made by him he was re-employed on 6.2.1996.
Learned counsel for the appellant relied on clause 11 of the aforesaid G.O. Clause 11 of the said G.O. states:- ""Dependents of such of those
temporary employees who had put in more than 240 days of work in a year before their demise and regularised and confirmed employees are
alone eligible for this concession.
In our opinion, a liberal interpretation should be put on the aforesaid clause 11.
In Transport Corporation of India Vs. Employees'' State Insurance Corpn. and Another, the Supreme Court observed that beneficial legislation
should be given a liberal and not a technical or narrow interpretation. If two interpretations are possible, then the one in favour of the employee
should be preferred.
In B.D. Shetty and Others Vs. M/s Ceat Ltd. and Another, , the Supreme Court observed: -
One must not lose sight of the fact that the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and the provision of subsistence allowance made is intended to
serve a definite purpose of sustaining the workman and his family members during the bad time when he is under suspension, pending inquiry. This
provision is enacted with a view to ensure social welfare and security. Hence, such a beneficial piece of legislation has to be understood and
construed in its proper and correct perspective so as to advance the legislative intention underlying its enactment rather than abolish it. Assuming
two views are possible, the one, which is in tune with the legislative intention and furthers the same, should be preferred to the one which would
frusturate it.
In Secretary, H.S.E.B Vs. Suresh and Others etc. etc., , the Supreme Court observed: -
Needless to note at this juncture that the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act being a beneficial piece of legislation as engrafted in the
statute-book, ought to receive the widest possible interpretation in regard to the words used and unless words are taken to their maximum
amplitude, it would be a violent injustice to the framers of the law. As a matter of fact the law is well settled by this Court and we need not dilate
much by reason therefore to the effect that the law courts exist for the society and in the event of there being a question posed in the matter of
interpretation of a beneficial piece of legislation, question of interpreting the same with a narrow pedantic approach would not be justified. On the
contrary, the widest possible meaning and amplitude ought to be offered to the expressions used as otherwise the entire legislation would lose its
efficacy and contract labour would be left at the mercy of the intermediary.
The respondent''s husband had no doubt worked for more than 240 days before his demise. In fact he had worked for 16 years. Hence, in our
opinion, the respondent (his widow) is entitled to the benefit of the said G.O. There is no force in this appeal and it is dismissed. Consequently
WAMP No. 682 of 2005 is also dismissed.