A beneficial statute is a class of statutes which seeks to confer benefit on individuals and classes of

persons by relieving them of onerous obligation under contracts entered into by them (they get
this statement from labour legislations) or which tend to protect persons against oppressive acts
from individuals with whom they stand in certain relations.
 The established principle in the construction of such statutes is that there should not be any narrow
interpretation. Construction of beneficial statutes should not be done in a narrow sense. The court
should attempt to be generous towards the persons on whom benefit should be conferred.
 When a statute is interpreted liberally to give the widest possible meaning to it, it is called ‘beneficent
construction’. Beneficial construction is an interpretation to secure remedy to the victim who is
unjustly denied of relief. 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 legislations do receive liberal interpretation, the courts try to remain
within the scheme and not extend the benefit to those not covered under the scheme.
 This rule can only be resorted to without doing any violence to the language of the statute.
 In case of any exception, when the implementation of the beneficial act is restricted by the court, it
has to be construed narrowly so as to not unduly expand the area of scope of the exception.
 There are different kinds of legislation which receive beneficial construction. Generally, laws which
promote general welfare and deal with urgent social demands receive such construction.
 In case of legislations which may have two different interpretations, the interpretation of the
legislation which favours the class of persons which are protected via this legislation is preferred.
 The interpretation of socio-economic legislations, which are aimed at social or economic
policy changes, should not be narrow.

 Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Ashok Vishnu. The Court held that in a case related to prevention of
unfair labour practice, while interpreting social welfare legislations, a construction should be placed on
the relevant provisions which furthers the purpose for which the legislation was enacted.

 Sant Ram v. Rajinder Ram. The Supreme Court said that a welfare legislation must be interpreted
in a third-world perspective, favouring the weaker and poorer class. It has also been laid down that in
case of such labour legislations, courts should not stick to grammatical construction but also have regard
toteleological purpose (relating to or involving the explanation of a phenomenon in terms of the
purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise) andprotective intendment (whom is
the legislation protecting?) of the legislation.

 In case of a beneficial-oriented legislation like the Consumer Protection Act of 1956, the provisions
are supposed to be construed as broadly as possible.
 Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjol Aluhwalia (1998). In this case, interpreting one of the
sections of the Act, it was held that parents who hired the services of a hospital and the child for whom
the services are hired, both are consumers independently and hence can independently claim damages.

 B. Shah v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court. This case was in relation to section 5 of the Maternity
Benefit Act, with respect to the amount of wages to be given to a mother [Under the Act, wages are to be
paid to an expecting mother for the days she is on leave due to pregnancy]. The question was whether
Sundays were to be accounted for in the computation of wages. It was held, giving a broad construction
to the Act, that Sundays would be taken into account in the computation of wages to be paid.

 Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaykumar. This case pertained to section 123 of the Railways
Act, 1989. It was provided that if an ‘untoward accident’ happens and a passenger inside a train is injured
due to some fault of the railways, the passenger must be compensated. The question was whether an
accident while boarding the train would fall within the ambit of the term ‘untoward accident’. Giving a
liberal construction, it was held that since the ‘benefit’ is to give compensation, it would be considered an
‘untoward accident’.

 Amritham Kudumbah v. S. Kudumbah. Herein, section 8(3) of the Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act was in question. The child in this case was the owner of some property given to him by
his grandfather, but because of his minority, his father was made the trustee of that property till the child
attained majority. A clause was incorporated in the deed, which stated that under no circumstances would
the father sell the property. However, if there arose any legal necessity to sell that property, the father
would have to take the permission of the court. The legal necessity was meant to be for the benefit of the
minor child. The father sold the property without there being any legal necessity, and without the court’s
permission. The question was whether the child, after attaining majority, could declare this sale void. The
Court held that section 8(3) was to be construed liberally, and the child could not be denied the right to
declare the sale void as the provision of the said legislation was for the benefit of the minor child.