JUDGMENT
V.K. Bali, J.
1. This order shall dispose of Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 364 and 365 of 1986 as common question of law and facts are involved therein.
2. Haryana Housing Board, Chandigarh, has challenged in two separate Letters Patent Appeals the judgment recorded by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated March 31,1986 vide which, while dealing with the writ petitions of the litigating parties i.e. the Haryana Housing Board, Chandigarh and the Haryana Housing Board Employees Union, it was held that the Housing Board has hardly any attributes or characteristics of a local authority as envisaged by Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act and its employees are, thus, entitled to bonus as also that the quantum of bonus should be re-determined by the Industrial Tribunal but till such time the Tribunal gives its final decission, the bonus should be continued to be paid to the employees at the rate ordered by the Tribunal i.e. 8.33%. It appears that it is only with a view to avoid technical objection that two Letters Patent Appeals have been filed as there were two writ petitions which were decided by a commons order by the learned Single Judge.
3. The brief facts of the case reveal that the Haryana Housing Board Employees Union (hereinafter to be referred to as the Union) submitted a demand notice to the Haryana Housing Board (hereinafter to be referred to as the Board) which besides other demands also contained bonus to its employees @ 20% for the years 1974-75,1975-76,1976-77 and 1977-78. The Board refuted all the demands inclusive of the one, referred to above and when conciliation between
the parties failed, the Administration made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh, for adjudication of the same. The Tribunal accepted the demand of the union and directed the Board to pay bonus @
8.33% for the years mentioned above. Whereas, this order was not to the liking of the Board in as much as its employees were held entitled to bonus @ 8.33% the employees as well were not satisfied with the quantum of bonus allowed to them. That being so, both the parties filed separate writ petitions which came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated March 31, 1986, which, as mentioned above, has been challenged in two separate Letters Patent Appeals.
4. The only contention raised by Mr. V.K. Vasistha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Appellant-Board is that in view of the provisions contained in Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971, the Board is not ‘local authority’ within the meaning of Section 32(iv) of the Payment of Bonus Act and that being so, it is not liable to pay any bonus to its employees. As is apparent, the aforesaid argument stans from the provisions contained in Section 32(iv) of the Payment of Bonus Act which runs thus :-
“Employees employed by an establishment engaged in any industry carried on by or under the authority of any department of the Central Government or the state Government or a local authority.”
5. The basic reliance of the learned counsel is on Section 3(3) of the Haryana Housing Board Act which reads thus :-
“For the purpose of this Act and the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Board shall be deemed to be a local authority.”
6. The aforesaid argument was thoroughly dealt by the learned Single Judge and it was held that the very fact that the Board is deemed to be a local authority, implies that in the absence of this
Sub-section, the Board would not have been a local authority and when a person or a thing is “deemed to be” something, the only meaning possible is that whereas he or it is not in reality that something the Act requires him or it to be treated as if he or it were. For arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, learned Single Judge relied on Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay Presidency v. Bombay Trust Corporation, AIR 1930 Privy Council, 54 as also the decision of Single Judge of Mysore High Court in The Official Liquidator of the Mysore Spun Mills, Ltd. v. The Mysore State Electricity Board
and Ors., ILR 1961 Mysore, 434. the learned Single Judge also relied on the statement of law as per Lorsburn L.C. in Macbeth
and Cc. v. Chislett, 3 1910 Act, 220. The usual attributes and characteristics of a ‘local authority’ as defined in the General Clauses Act were spelled out by the Apex Court in Union of India
and Ors. v. R.C. Jain and Ors., AIR 1981 SC, 951 which are as follows :-
“(i) These authorities must have separate legal existence as corporate bodies;
(ii) they must not be mere Governmental agencies but must be legally independent entities.
(iii) they must function in a defined area and must ordinarily, wholly or partly, directly or indirectly, be elected by the inhabitants of the area;
(iv) they must enjoy a certain degree of autonomy, with freedom to decide for themselves questions of policy affecting the area administered by them. The autonomy may not be complete and the degree of the dependence may vary considerably but, an appreciable measure of autonomy there must be;
(v) they must be entrusted by statute with such Governmental functions and duties as are usually entrusted to Municipal bodies, such as those connected with providing amenities to the inhabitants of the locality, like health and education services, water and sewerage, town planning and development, roads, markets, transportation, social welfare services etc. etc. Broadly speaking, they must be entrusted with the performance of civic duties and functions which would otherwise be Governmental duties and functions; and lastly,
(vi) they must have the power to raise funds for the furtherance of their activities and the fulfillment of their projects by levying taxes, rates, charges or fees. This may be in addition to money provided by Government or obtained by borrowing or otherwise. What is essential is that control or management of the fund must vest in the authority.”
The learned Single Judge, while examining the matter in view of the provisions
of Haryana Housing Board Act, came to a firm conclusion that the characteristics or attributes ascribable to a local authority as stated at No. (ii) to (v) are completely missing so far as the Haryana Housing Board is concerned. The Board consists of a chairman and such other number of members but not more than twelve and less than six, as the State Government may from time to time by notification appoint. There-is no element of election or representation of the residents of the area so far as the constitution of the Board is concerned The chairman and the members of the Board hold office “during the pleasure of the State Government.” In case a vacancy occurs in the office of the Chairman or a member of the Board on account of any reason, the same is to be filled by the State Government in its discretion. Secretary of the Board is to be appointed by the State Government on such terms and conditions as it may deem fit. The Board cannot enter into a contract involving an expenditure of Rs. Twenty lacs or more without the previous sanction of the State Government. The Board can incur the expenditure and undertake works in any area for the framing and execution of such housing schemes as it may consider necessary from time to time or as may be entrusted to it by the State Government
7. The aforesaid impressive array of acts that have been noticed by learned Single Judge clearly establish that the Board has hardly any independent control and management over its funds. Mr. Vashistha, learned counsel for the Appellant-Board has not been able to persuade us so as to take a different view than the one taken by the learned Single Judge and we find no occasion whatsoever to differ with the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge in his well reason judgment.
8. Once we have held that the provisions of the Bonus Act are attracted in the case of employees of the Board, there is absolutely no need to go into the question of quantum of bonus payable to them. Suffice it to say that in consequence of the remand, we have been informed, the Industrial Tribunal has already determined the quantum of bonus @ 20% against which the Board has already filed a writ petition which, after admission, is pending disposal in this Court. This leaves no scope for arguments for the Board as the quantum of bonus is now subject matter of decision in a separate writ petition in which this question shall obviously be gone into and determined.
9. With these observations, the appeals filed by the Board are dismissed having no merit leaving, however, the parties to bear their own costs.