TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board is a local authority within the meaning of Section 32(iv) of the Payment of Bonus Act and, if so, whether its employees engaged in establishments run by it are exempt from bonus; (ii) Whether Section 32(iv) of the Payment of Bonus Act is unconstitutional as violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Issue (i): Whether the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board is a local authority within the meaning of Section 32(iv) of the Payment of Bonus Act and, if so, whether its employees engaged in establishments run by it are exempt from bonus.
Analysis: The definition of local authority under the General Clauses Act was applied with reference to the settled indicia of such an authority, namely separate legal existence, defined territorial jurisdiction, a measure of autonomy, statutory entrustment of civic functions and power to raise and manage funds. The Board was found to be a body corporate functioning within a defined metropolitan area, entrusted with water supply and sewerage functions of a public character, and empowered to levy rates, fees and charges for its fund. The absence of an elected body and the absence of a taxing power in the strict sense were held not to destroy its character as a local authority. The exemption in Section 32(iv) was read as covering employees employed by an establishment engaged in industry carried on by or under the authority of a local authority, and it was held unnecessary that the authority must also discharge sovereign functions apart from running the industry.
Conclusion: The Board is a local authority within Section 32(iv) and its employees engaged in the relevant establishments are exempt from bonus under that provision.
Issue (ii): Whether Section 32(iv) of the Payment of Bonus Act is unconstitutional as violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The object of the Bonus Act was treated as sharing the prosperity of an establishment and maintaining industrial harmony. On that basis, employees of a local authority running a public utility industry were held to form a distinct class, because their employment was subject to statutory control, different conditions of service and a public-interest character. The Court held that the classification created by Section 32(iv) had an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus with the statutory object. The challenge failed also because no adequate material was placed to show that the excluded class was similarly situated to employees entitled to bonus elsewhere.
Conclusion: Section 32(iv) is constitutionally valid and does not violate Article 14.
Final Conclusion: The award was set aside to the extent it granted bonus to the Board's pumping station and treatment plant employees, the workmen's challenge failed, and the statutory exemption in favour of the Board was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory body with separate corporate existence, defined territorial jurisdiction, civic/public functions, reasonable autonomy and power to raise and manage funds may be treated as a local authority for Section 32(iv) of the Payment of Bonus Act, and the exclusion of its industrial establishments from bonus liability can withstand Article 14 if supported by a rational classification connected with the Act's object.
TaxTMI 
