Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

28. Coming to further argument about harmonious construction of various provisions incorporated under the Act, 1982 right since 1991 till the year 2016 in light of object of the State Government to regularise the services of all such employees who have been working on ad-hoc basis upon being appointed against short-term vacancy from time to time and even on substantive vacancy in accordance with law, I would like here to refer to a judgement of Five-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Jahaj Pal (supra) where the Full Bench has observed that Section 33-G was a residuary provision to make regularisation of all such employees teachers who were appointed till 25.01.1999 or even subsequently if proceedings for selection had started prior to 25.01.1999.

32. Mr. Khare was right in arguing that looking to the intendment of legislature, if the harmonious construction is given to various provisions contained under Section 33-A to 33-G, one would find that purpose for which the various sections were inserted from time to time would be achieved. In Kalyan Dombivali (supra) vide paragraphs 31 to 33, the Court held thus:

31. In the case of Philips India Ltd. v. Labour Court, Madras and Others (1985) 3 SCC 103, this Court had an occasion to decide the rate of overtime wages as mentioned in Section 31 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947. This Court found that for finding the minimum rate of overtime wages as mentioned in Section 31 of the said Act, it will have to be interpreted in the light of the provisions contained in Section 14(1) read with proviso to Section 31 of the said Act. Coming to this conclusion, this Court observed thus:

32. It could thus be seen that this Court has held that the Statute must be read as a whole. It has been held that this rule of statutory construction is so firmly established that it is variously styled as "elementary rule". It has been held that for finding out the true meaning of one part of a statute, a reference will have to be made to another part of the statute and that will best express meaning of the makers.

33. In the case of Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain (1997) 1 SCC 373, this Court was considering the question regarding the conflict between Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Order XXI Rule 2 thereof. This Court held that applying the rule of harmonious construction, the so-called conflict between the said two provisions had been dispelled. Observing so, this Court reiterated the following well­ settled principles of interpretation of statutes:"

(3) It has to be borne in mind by all the courts all the time that when there are two conflicting provisions in an Act, which cannot be reconciled with each other, they should be so interpreted that, if possible, effect should be given to both. This is the essence of the rule of "harmonious construction".

(4) The courts have also to keep in mind that an interpretation which reduces one of the provisions as a "dead letter" or "useless lumber" is not harmonious construction.

(5) To harmonise is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render it otiose."