DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

LUCKNOW

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES
Vice Chancellor Luknow, University of Lucknow vs Akhilesh
Kumar Khare and Another
SUBMITTED TO:
Mr. Manwendra Kumar Tiwari
Assistant Professor
RMLNLU
SUBMITTED BY:
Tejaswa Kumar Gupta
B.A. LL.B. Hons, V Sem
Roll No. 151

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I hereby take this opportunity to thank all those without whose support, faith in my abilities
and guidance I would never have been able to finish my project.
I am indebted to my teacher Mr. Manwendra Kumar Tiwari for guiding me throughout,
without which this work of mine would never see the light of the day.
I also want to thanks my friends for giving the great support and being the fantastic critique
that they were which helped me to improve my project in every way. And our library staff
who helped a lot.
And last, but not the least, I thank my parents who supported and encouraged me to proceed
with courage and determination so as I leave no stone upturned.
Without all these people, I suppose that I would have never been able to even think about
making this project.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
FACTS
ISSUE
AMBIGUITY
APPLICATION OF RULE OF INTERPRETATION IN GIVEN FACT
DECISION
ANALYSIS

FACTS

Mr. R.S. Vishwakarma, Finance officer of University of Lucknow, appointed daily wage
laborers and paid those wages from contingency fund of the university of Lucknow.
Vice Chancellor of the university recognized some discrepancies in the funds hence asked the
departments to inform deputy registrar for any requirements regarding man force who further
would forward such application to the vice chancellor, who will approve and send such
requirements to state government.
After which state government will notify about the vacancies. VC announced on 3-8-1990
that from 31-12-1990 daily wagers will not be allowed to continue their work. From 1-011991 engagements of daily wagers came to end. On 28-01-19912 legal notice was send to the
VC through mazdoor sabha. The respondents then individually sent application to the Deputy
labor Commissioner for conciliation of dispute.
Conciliation went futile then the Deputy Labor Commissioner referred this to the labor court
which held that the action by the university is illegal and the daily wagers should be
reinstated. The university appealed in the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in 14-092009 upheld the decision of the labor court and affirmed with the judgment of the labor court.
The university then appealed in the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

There are two major issues raised in this case, first being whether the casual workers should
be regularized by the court or the state government, second being whether those workers
would be considered eligible for the compensation offered to them fir the working time
period.

AMBIGUITY

In university of lucknow vs ashok kumar khare1 case the appointment of non-teaching staff
had to be done in conformity with the rules and in Umadevis2 case, this Court settled the
principle that no casual workers should be regularised by the Courts or the State Government
and as per constitutional provisions all the citizens of this country have right to contest for the
employment and temporary or casual workers have no right to seek for regularization and
rules framed for appointment should be followed. The constitutional bench in this case made
an exception by allowing the regularization of casual workers which led to the ambiguity of
whether the written rule should be followed or not.

APPLICATION OF RULE OF INTERPRETATION IN GIVEN

FACTS
There are three different methods of interpretation viz.,
(1) The Literal or Plain meaning rule is where judges take the literal meaning of statute
and apply this to the case at hand
(2) The Golden Rule allows judges again to take the literal meaning of the statute but if the
decision will lead to an absurd outcome then the judge will intervene and use their
judicial mind to make a judgment
(3) The Mischief Rule
Herein, we are concerned with literal and golden methods of interpretation. Bench used
provided methods of interpretation at different points raised in the case.
While referring to Uma devi, this court adopted method of literal interpretation as it was
stated in the case that,
__________________________________________________________
1.
2.

Vice Chancellor, University of Lucknow vs Akhilesh Kumar Khare and Anr. AIR 2015 SCC 3473
State of Karnatake vs Uma Devi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753

One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular

appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa
(1967) 1 SCR 128, R.N. Nanjundappa (1972) 1 SCC 409 and B.N. Nagarajan

(1979) 4 SCC 507 and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in
duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have
continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders
of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of
such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the
principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of
this judgment.
In the aforementioned paragraph, benefit is supposed to be extended only to them who have
worked against a sanctioned position for a period of ten years, but as provided in the
judgment of the case, the benefit wasnt extended to the appellants as they worked only for
one-and-half years and not for ten years also they were not positioned against any sanctioned
post, thereby taking literal method of interpretation .
Also, Section 17(b) of The Industrial Development Act, 1949 was interpreted in its literal
sense as court ordered university to provide pending wages to the casual workers for the time
period of proceedings.
Court didnt follow literal method of interpretation but the golden rule of interpretation while
dealing with violation of section 25 (f). As it was decided in case, Incharge Officer v.
Shankar Shetty. Should an order of reinstatement automatically follow in a case where the
engagement of a daily wager has been brought to end in violation of Section 25-F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The course of the decisions of this Court in recent years has
been uniform on the above question.
Court didnt go for reinstatement but opted for compensation. Court in view of the
respondents facing hardships on account of pending litigation for more than two decades and
__________________________________________________________________________________________
3.
4.
5.
6.

S.V. Narayanappa (1967) 1 SCR 128

R.N. Nanjundappa (1972) 1 SCC 409
B.N. Nagarajan (1979) 4 SCC 507
Incharge Officer v. Shankar Shetty (2010) 9 SCC 126 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 733

the fact that some of the respondents are over aged and thus have lost the opportunity to get a
job elsewhere, decided that interest of justice would be met by directing the appellantuniversity to pay compensation of rupees four lakhs to each of the respondents.

DECISION
The appellant-university is directed to pay the respondents rupees four lakhs each within four
months from the date of receipt of this judgment. The payment of rupees four lakhs shall be
in addition to wages paid under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

ANALYSIS
If, simply, a literal interpretation of an act makes it absurd and arbitrary then court should
move to implementation and introduction of common sense so as to serve justice in real sense
rather than only on paper similar to facts of this case in which court moved to providing
compensation to the casual workers rather than reinstating the which would have turned
arbitrary as many of them now were old enough to not be able to work.