Case: Paul Enterprises  Vs. Rajib Chatterjee &amp; Co.

Corpn. Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court) The word `includes when used, enlarges the meaning of the expression defined so as to comprehend not only such things as they signify according to their natural import but also those things which the clause declares that they shall include. The words "means and includes", on the other hand, indicate `an exhaustive explanation of the meaning which, for the purposes of the Act, must invariably be attached to these words or expressions." 25. In K.V. Muthu v. Angamuthu Ammal [(1997) 2 SCC 53] , this Court held: "10. Apparently, it appears that the definition is conclusive as the word "means" has been used to specify the members, namely, spouse, son, daughter, grandchild or dependant parent, who would constitute the family. Section 2 of the Act in which various terms have been defined, opens with the words "in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires" which indicates that the definitions, as for example, that of "family", which are indicated to be conclusive may not be treated to be conclusive if it was otherwise required by the context. This implies that a definition, like any other word in a statute, has to be read in the light of the context and scheme of the Act as also the object for which the Act was made by the legislature.11. While interpreting a definition, it has to be borne in mind that the interpretation placed on it should not only be not repugnant to the context, it should also be such as would aid the achievement of the purpose which is sought to be served by the Act. A construction which would defeat or was likely to defeat the purpose of the Act has to be ignored and not accepted.12. Where the definition or expression, as in the instant case, is preceded by the words "unless the context otherwise requires", the said definition set out in the section is to be applied and given effect to but this rule, which is the normal rule may be departed from if there be something in the context to show that the definition could not be applied." 26. In Bharat Coop. Bank (Mumbai) Ltd. v. Coop. Bank Employees Union [(2007) 4 SCC 685] , this Court held: "23. Section 2(bb) of the ID Act as initially introduced by Act 54 of 1949 used the words "means ... and includes" and was confined to a "banking company" as defined in Section 5 of the Banking Companies Act, 1949, having branches or other establishments in more than one province and includes Imperial Bank of India. Similarly, Section 2(kk), which was also introduced by Act 54 of 1949, defines insurance company as "an insurance company as defined in Section 2 of the Insurance Act, 1938 (4 of 1938), having branches or other establishments in more than one province". It is trite to say that when in the definition clause given in any statute the word "means" is used, what follows is intended to speak exhaustively. When the word "means" is used in the definition, to borrow the words of Lord Esher, M.R. in Gough v. Gough it is a "hard-and-fast" definition and no meaning other than that which is put in the definition can be assigned to the same. (Also see P. Kasilingam v. P.S.G. College of Technology.) On the other hand, when the word "includes" is used in the definition, the legislature does not intend to restrict the definition: it makes the definition enumerative but not exhaustive. That is to say, the term defined will retain its ordinary meaning but its scope would be extended to bring within it matters, which in its ordinary meaning may or may not comprise. Therefore, the use of the word "means" followed by the word "includes" in Section 2(bb) of the ID Act is clearly indicative of the legislative intent to make the definition exhaustive and would cover only those banking companies which fall within the purview of the definition and no other." 27. Even if we apply the standards which are applicable in the industrial law meaning thereby Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as also a situation where the question arises as to grant of back wages for not being able to gainfully employed, a person living on mere subsistence earning as of necessity is not considered to be gainfully employed. [See Novartis India Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. [2008 (15) SCALE 470 ] 28. Keeping in view the interpretative tools required to be used in a case of this nature, we are of the opinion, despite the fact that the respondents had been earning some money, the same would not disentitle them to take part in the selection process for grant of a license in terms of the order. 29. The advertisement in question keeping in view the text and context in which it was issued clearly go to show that for the purpose of applying for grant of a liquor shop, the respondents were qualified having been continuing to be registered in the Employment Exchange and having been granted a certificate in that behalf by the person specified in the advertisement. 30. It is not a case where the word `unemployed should be given a literal or even the dictionary meaning. In our view, it is required to be given a purposive meaning; a meaning which is capable of being translated in the action, a meaning which would not lead to an anomaly or absurdity; a meaning which satisfies the text and context in which the word has been used. 31. Furthermore, the appellant No. 1 applied for and was granted the similar certificate. It is, therefore, too late in the day for him to contend now that the provisions relating to grant of certificate being devoid of any guideline or objective criteria should be declared ultra vires. 32. In any event, even otherwise, the validity and/or legality of the said Order has not been challenged. 33.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]we are of the opinion, despite the fact that the respondents had been earning some money, the same would not disentitle them to take part in the selection process for grant of a license in terms of theadvertisement in question keeping in view the text and context in which it was issued clearly go to show that for the purpose of applying for grant of a liquor shop, the respondents were qualified having been continuing to be registered in the Employment Exchange and having been granted a certificate in that behalf by the person specified in theis not a case where the word `unemployed should be given a literal or even the dictionary meaning. In our view, it is required to be given a purposive meaning; a meaning which is capable of being translated in the action, a meaning which would not lead to an anomaly or absurdity; a meaning which satisfies the text and context in which the word has been