CWP No.8261 of 1988 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.8261 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision: 3.8.2010 The Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board Field Staff Employees Welfare Association, Jind through its General Secretary, Sadhu Ram Bandhu. -----Petitioner Vs. The State of Haryana and another ----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL Present:- Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Gupta, Addl.A.G.Haryana for the State. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This petition seeks direction for grant of 20% bonus to the petitioner. 2. 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 the rate of 8.33%. Cooperative Banks were being 1 CWP No.8261 of 1988 given bonus under judgment of this Court Annexure P.7. Accordingly, claim for bonus has been made. 3. In the reply filed on behalf of the Board, stand taken is that Board is a local authority and is not an ‘industry’. Under Section 32 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (1965 Act), industry carried on by or under the 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. 4. 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. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Question for consideration is whether liability of the respondent Board arises under the 1965 Act in view of exemption under section 32 of the Act. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent Board was not ‘local authority’ and, therefore, exemption under section 32 of the Act is not available. 8. 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 and others v. R.C.Jain and others, AIR 1981 SC 951. Therein, it was held that Delhi Development Authority was ‘local authority’ falling under section 32 of the 1965 2 CWP No.8261 of 1988 Act. Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 was also referred to. In Patel Premji Jiva v. State of Gujarat, (1971) 3 SCC 815, a Market Committee was held to be ‘local authority’. 9. A perusal of Scheme of 1961 Act shows that the Marketing Board is constituted under section 3 and under sub section 3, the Board is a ‘local authority’. Its main function under section 3(9) is to exercise superintendence and control over market committees. Market committees are established under section 12 to regulate marketing of agricultural produce. 10. 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 v. Income Tax Officer, (1985) 158 ITR 742. 11. 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. 12. 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’ under section 32 of the 1965 Act. This being the position, direction for grant of bonus under the 1965 Act cannot be issued. 13. 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. August 3, 2010 (Adarsh Kumar Goel) ‘gs’ Judge 3