Find a Lawyer

‑‑S. O. 10‑B(I), (4) [as amended by Act II of 1976]‑Compulsory Group Insurance‑Expression "such workman suffers death or injury out of contingencies mentioned in clause (1)" occurring in cl. (4)‑Words "death" and "injury"‑Connotation‑Clause (4) covers cases of natural death and disability referred to in cl. (1).‑[Words and phrases].

Constitutional Petition No. S. 38 of 1977 and Words and Phrases Legally Defined, Vol. III ref.

(b) Interpretation of statutes‑---

Nothing is to be added to or taken away from a statute unless adequate grounds present to justify inference that Legislature intended something which it omitted to express‑Cassus omissus in a statute‑Not to be readily inferred‑Rule, however, not inflexible‑ Primary and most fundamental rule of construction‑ To ascertain and give effect to real intention of law‑maker‑Main principles of inter pretation such as mischief rule, rule of beneficial construction, presumption against ousting jurisdiction, rule of harmonious construc tion and avoidance of repugnancy‑To be taken into consideration specially in cases of special legislation.‑[Legislation].

No doubt it is basic rule of construction to intend the legislation to have meant what they have "actually expressed", and the necessary corollary to this rule is that nothing is to be added to or taken from a statute unless there are adequate grounds to justify the inference that the Legislature intended something which it omitted to express. There is wealth of autho rity for the proposition that a case not provided for in a statute is not to be dealt with merely because there seems no good reason why it should have been omitted, and the omission appears in consequence to have been unintentional. Cassus omissus in a statute is not to be readily inferred. The rule, however, is not an inflexible one for the primary and the most fundamental rule of construction, to which all other rules are subsidiary, is to ascertain and give effect to the real intention of the law‑makers, further more, the other main principles of interpretation, such as the mischief rule, the rule of beneficial construction, the presumption against ousting established jurisdiction, and the rule of harmonious construction and evidence of repugnancy, have also to be taken into consideration, specially in cases of special types of legislation or provisions of a special nature.

Punjab Province v. Malik Khizar Hayat Khan P L D 1956 F C 2C0; Burmah Shell Oil Co. Ltd. v. Trustees P L D‑1961 S C 452 ; Ghulam Sarwar v. Pakistan P L D 1962 S C 142: Zlaur Rehman v. State P L D 1973 S C 49 ; Miss F. Dubash v. Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal P L D 1978 Kar. 302 ; Muhammad Iqbal Khan Niazi v. Vice‑Chanceller, University of Punjab P 4. D 1979 S C 1 ; Allah Wasaya v. Federal Land Commission P L D 1979 S ' ‑C 44 and Commissioner of Special Purposes of Income‑tax v. Pemsel (1891) A C 531 distinguished.

Thomson v. Goold & Co. (1910) A C 409 ; Vickers, Sons & Maxim Ltd. v. Evans (1910) A C 444 ; Maxmell on Interpretation of Statutes, 12th Edn., p. 33; Crates on Statute Law, 6th Edn., p. 520 and Muhammad Ismail v. State P L D 1969 S C 241 ref.

(c) Interpretation of statutes‑

‑‑ Drafting errors‑Can be corrected in appropriate cases.

Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 12th Edn., p. 231 ref.

(d) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordi nance (VI of 1968)‑

‑‑‑ S. O. 10‑B‑A beneficial provision‑Rule of beneficial construction to apply to it.‑[Interpretation of statutes].

Trim Joint District School Board of Management v. Kelly (1914) A C 667;

Mahadeo Dhondu v. L. A. Tribunal of India A I R 1955 Bom. 394 and Province of East Pakistan v. Sherafatullah P L D 1970 S C 514 ref.

S. A. Sarwana for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent No. 1.

Nizam Ahmad for Respondent No. 2.

Date of hearing : 13th February 1979.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.