While construing a statute, 'sympathy' has no role to play.
While construing a statute, 'sympathy' has no role to play. This Court cannot interpret the provisions of the said Act ignoring the binding decisions of the Constitution Bench of this Court only by way of sympathy to the concerned workmen.
In A. Umarani vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Others [(2004) 7 SCC 112], this Court rejected a similar contention upon noticing the following judgments :
"In a case of this nature this court should not even exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India on misplaced sympathy.
In Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. Vs. U.T., Chandigarh and Others [(2004) 2 SCC 130], it is stated:
"We have no doubt in our mind that sympathy or sentiment by itself cannot be a ground for passing an order in relation whereto the appellants
miserably fail to establish a legal right. It is further trite that despite an extra-ordinary
constitutional jurisdiction contained in Article 142 of the Constitution of India, this Court ordinarily would not pass an order, which would be in
contravention of a statutory provision.
As early as in 1911, Farewell L.J. in Latham
vs. Richard Johnson & Nephew Ltd. [1911-13 AER reprint p.117] observed :
"We must be careful not to allow our
sympathy with the infant plaintiff to affect our judgment. Sentiment is a dangerous Will O'
the Wisp to take as a guide in the search for
legal principles."
Supreme Court of India
M/S Maruti Udyog Ltd vs Ram Lal & Ors on 25 January, 2005
