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. 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.
(3.) 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. ";