The Supreme Court has advised that not too much should be read into observations made by judges, taking them out of context. “The only thing in a judge’s decision binding (on) a party is the principle upon which the case is decided,” said the court, adding that it was important to analyse a decision and isolate from it the observations. Underlining that observations made by courts “must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated”, the bench comprising Justices Dr Arijit Pasayat and P Sathasivam said: “Observations of courts are neither to be read as Euclid’s theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context.” While judges may embark on lengthy discussions to interpret words, phrases and provisions of a Statute, the court said, this was “meant to explain and not to define”. “Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes,” the apex court reminded. The SC made the observations while disagreeing with the view of the High Court and Labour Court in a case, holding the Law Department in Rajasthan as an “industry”.A peon, working on contract in the Law Department, Jaipur, had contested his termination notice, calling it illegal. Both the Labour Court and the High Court had upheld this, equating, the peon as a “worksman” and placing the Law Department at parity with an “industry.” The apex court, however, noted that no reasoning had been offered for this conclusion, apart from “merely stating that in some cases, the Irrigation Department, Public Works Department have been held to be covered by the expression industry”. “Reliance on a decision without looking into the factual background of a case before it is clearly impermissible,” noted Justice Pasayat. “Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed.”The bench termed the views expressed by the Labour Court and high court as “indefensible.” The accepted concept of an industry cannot be applied to the Law Department of the Government, it said.
