Harmonious Rule of Interpretation

Harmonious Rule
Meaning
• It is a cardinal rule of construction that when there are in a statute
two provisions which are in such conflict with each other, that both of
them cannot stand together, they should possibly be so interpreted
that effect can be given to both.
• And that a construction which renders either of them inoperative and
useless should not be adopted except in the last resort.
• The rule follows a very simple premise that every statute has a
purpose and intent as per law and should be read as a whole.
• The Courts should avoid “a head on clash”, in the words of the Apex
Court, between the different parts of an enactment and conflict
between the various provisions should be sought to be harmonized.
The normal presumption should be consistency and it should not be
assumed that what is given with one hand by the legislature is sought
to be taken away by the other.
• The rule of harmonious construction has been briefly explained by the
Supreme Court thus, “Where in an enactment two provisions are
there that cannot be reconciled with each other, they should be so
interpreted, that possible effect should be given to both”. A
construction which makes one portion of the enactment a dead letter
should be avoided since harmonization is not equivalent to
destruction.
CIT v Hindustan Bulk Carrier
• The Supreme Court laid down five principles
• 1. The courts must avoid a head on clash of seemingly contradicting provisions and they
must construe the contradictory provisions so as to harmonize them.
• 2. The provision of one section cannot be used to defeat the provision contained in
another unless the court, despite all its effort, is unable to find a way to reconcile their
differences.
• 3.When it is impossible to completely reconcile the differences in contradictory
provisions, the courts must interpret them in such a way so that effect is given to both the
provisions as much as possible.
• 4.Courts must also keep in mind that interpretation that reduces one provision to a
useless number or dead is not a harmonious construction.
• 5.To harmonize does not intend to destroy any statutory provision or to render it fruitless.
Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore
• In this case the Supreme Court applied the rule of harmonious
construction in resolving a conflict between Articles 25(2)(b) and
26(b) of the Constitution of India and it was held that the right of
every religious denomination or any section, thereof to manage its
own affairs in matters of religion [Article 26(b)] is subject to a law
made by a State providing for social welfare and reform or throwing
open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes
and sections of Hindus [Article 25(2)(b)].
Sirsilk Ltd. And Others vs Government Of
Andhra Pradesh
• Facts: • Industrial disputes having arisen between the appellants and
their workmen the disputes were referred for adjudication. • After
the Tribunal forwarded their Awards to the Government the parties in
each dispute came to settlement. • Thereafter letters were sent to the
Government requesting them to withhold the publication of the
Awards. • The Government replied that under s. 17 of the Act it was
mandatory for the Government to publish the Awards and they could
not withhold publication.
• Thereupon writ petitions were filed before the High Court under Art.
226 of the Constitution praying that the Government might be
directed to withhold the publication. • The High Court held that since
the provisions of s. 17 of the Act were mandatory it was not open to
the High Court to issue writs as prayed for and rejected, the petitions.
• S.17 Publication of reports and awards.- (1) Every report of a Board or
Court together with any minute of dissent recorded therewith, every
arbitration award and every award of a Labour Court, Tribunal or
National Tribunal shall, within a period of thirty days from the date of
its receipt by the appropriate Government, be published in such
manner as the appropriate Government thinks fit. (2) Subject to the
provisions of section 17A, the award published under sub- section (1)
shall be final and shall not be called in question by any Court in any
manner whatsoever.
18. Persons on whom settlements and awards
are binding
• . (1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workman otherwise than in the course
of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.
• (2) 3[ Subject to the provisions of sub- section (3), an arbitration award] which has become enforceable shall
be binding on the parties to the agreement who referred the dispute to arbitration.]
• (3) 4[ ] A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings under this Act 5[ or an arbitration
award in a case where a notification has been issued under sub- section (3A) of section 10A] or 6[ an award
7[ of a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] which has become enforceable] shall be binding on—
• (a) all parties to the industrial dispute; (b) all other parties summoned to appear in the proceedings as
parties to the dispute, unless the Board, 5[ arbitrator,] 8[ Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal], as the
case may be, records the opinion that they were so summoned without proper cause; (c) where a party
referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is an employer, his heirs, successors or assigns in respect of the
establishment to which the dispute relates; (d) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is
composed of workmen, all persons who were employed in the establishment or part of the establishment, as
the case may be, to which the dispute relates on the date of the dispute and all persons who subsequently
become employed in that establishment or part.
• Held, that it is clear on a reading of s. 17 and s. 17A together that the intention behind s.
17 (1) is that a duty is cast on Government to publish the award within thirty days of its
receipt and the provision for its publication is mandatory and not merely directory.
• When an agreement that has been arrived at between the parties, though not in the
course course of conciliation proceedings, it becomes a settlement as per the definition
under s. 2 (p) and s. 18 (1) lays down that such a Settlement shall be binding on all the
parties to it.
• If a situation like the one in the present case arises which may lead to a conflict between
a settlement under s. 18 (1) and an award binding under s. 18 (3) on publication, the only
solution is to withhold the award from publication.
• This would not in any way affect the mandatory nature of the provisions in s. 17 (1) for
the Government would ordinarily have to publish the award but for the special situation
arising in such cases.
Union of India vs. B.S. Aggarwal
• It is a settled rule that an interpretation which results in hardship,
injustice, inconvenience or anomaly should be avoided and that which
supports the sense of justice should be adopted. The Court leans in
favour of an interpretation which conforms to justice and fair play and
prevents injustice

Harmonious Rule of Interpretation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Harmonious Rule of Interpretation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Harmonious Rule of Interpretation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Harmonious Rule

You might also like