AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.—This petition seeks direction for grant of 20% bonus to the Petitioner.
Case of the Petitioner is that it is a trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 representing employees of the Respondent-Marketing Board-a statutory body under the provisions of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (1961 Act) to regulate marketing of agricultural produce. The Board is an industry and employees are workmen. The employees made representation dated 14.12.1982 raising a demand of bonus. Though the Board wrote to the Government for approval, the proposal was rejected by the Government. Later, vide decision dated 16.10.1990, the Board decided to give bonus at me rate of 8.33%. Cooperative Banks were being given bonus under judgment of this Court Annexure P.7. Accordingly, claim for bonus has been made.
In the reply filed on behalf of the Board, stand taken is that Board is a local authority and is not an ''industry''. u/s 32 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (1965 Act), industry carried on by or under me authority of any department of the Central Government or a State Government or a local authority is exempted from payment of bonus. Board was not engaged in profit making exercise. According to the said-stand, liability to bonus does not arise.
Reply has also been filed on behalf of the State to the effect that under policy applicable to Public Sector Undertakings, decisions were taken from time to time to give bonus and on that basis, bonus has been given to the Petitioner.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
Question for consideration is whether liability of the Respondent Board arises under the 1965 Act in view of exemption u/s 32 of the Act.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondent Board was not ''local authority'' and, therefore, exemption u/s 32 of the Act is not available.
Learned Counsel for the Respondents states that the Board is a local authority and thus, Section 32(iv) of the 1965 Act will be attracted. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Shri R.C. Jain and Others, .Therein, it was held that Delhi Development Authority was ''local authority'' falling u/s 32 of the 1965 Act. Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 was also referred to. In Patel Premji Jiva vs . State of Gujarat, (1971) 3 SCC 815 , a Market Committee was held to be ''local authority''.
A perusal of Scheme of 1961 Act shows that the Marketing Board is constituted u/s 3 and under Sub-Section 3, the Board is a ''local authority''. Its main function u/s 3(9) is to exercise superintendence and control over market commits tees. Market committees are established u/s 12 to regulate marketing of agricultural produce.
Following the judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in R.C. Jain and Patel Premji Jiva, the Marketing Board has been held to a ''local authority'' by the Bombay High Court in Krishi Utpanna Bazar Samiti Vs. Income Tax Officer and others, .
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has not shown any contrary view. He alternatively submitted that the Petitioner be not debarred from raising an industrial dispute.
In view of law laid down in R.C. Jain and Krishi Utpadan Bazar Samiti, the Board has to be held to be ''local authority'' u/s 32 of the 1965 Act. This being the position, direction for grant of bonus under the 1965 Act cannot be issued.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. It is made clear that this order will not stand in the way of raising an industrial dispute in accordance with law.