Union of India & Ors Vs. R. C.
Jain & Ors [1981] INSC 36 (17 February 1981)
ISLAM, BAHARUL (J) ISLAM, BAHARUL (J) PATHAK,
R.S.
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
CITATION: 1981 AIR 951 1981 SCR (2) 854 1981
SCC (2) 308 1981 SCALE (1)320
ACT:
Payment of Bonus Act, 1965-Section
32(iv)-Whether applicable to Delhi Development Aothority-Tests for determining
whether a body is a local authority.
HEADNOTE:
Section 32(iv) of the Payment of Bonus Act
provides that nothing in the Act shall apply to employees employed by an
establishment engaged in any industry carried on by or under the authority of
any department of the Central Government or State Government or a local
authority.
The Delhi Development Authority, a statutory
body created under the Delhi Development Act, 1957 for the development of Delhi
according to plan, paid bonus to its employees for a period of ten years up to
the year 1973-74, but later discontinued payment of bonus on the advice of the
Ministry of law.
The employees' petition impugning the action
of the Authority in stop ping the payment of bonus was allowed by the High
Court.
On the question whether the Delhi Development
Authority is a "local authority" and whether the provisions of the
Payment of Bonus Act are attracted:
Allowing the appeal,
HELD: The Delhi Development Authority is
endowed with all the usual attributes and characteristics of a 'local
authority' and therefore the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act are not
attracted. [865 A] The expression 'local authority' is not defined in the
Payment of Bonus Act. The General Clauses Act defines it to mean a municipal
committee or other authority legally entitled to or entrusted by the Government
with the control or management of a municipal or local fund. It is not a sound
rule of interpretation to import the definition of an expression in one Act
into another. The definition of 'Local Fund' in the Fundamental Rules, Treasury
Code and elsewhere cannot be imported into the definition of Local Authority in
the General Clauses Act and thus into the Delhi Development Act. An authority,
in order to be a local authority, must be of like nature and character as a
municipal committee etc.
possessing among others many, if not all, of
the distinctive attributes and characteristics of a municipal committee. It
must possess one essential feature, namely, that it is legally entitled to or
entrusted by the Government with the control and management of a municipal or
local fund. [857 B- H] The distinctive attributes and characteristics of a
local authority are:
(i) It must have separate legal existence as
a corporate body; (ii) it must not be a mere governmental agency but a legally
independent entity; (iii) it must function in a defined area and must
ordinarily be elected wholly or partly, 855 directly or indirectly by the
inhabitants of the area; (iv) it must enjoy a certain degree of autonomy,
which, though not complete, must be appreciable; (v) the statute must entrust
the authority with such governmental functions and duties as are usually
entrusted to a municipal body for providing such amenities, as health and
education services, water and sewerage, town planning and development, roads,
markets, transportation etc. to the inhabitants; (vi) it must have power to
raise funds in the furtherance of its activities and the fulfillment of the
projects entrusted to it by levying takes, rates, charges, fees etc. all of
which may be in addition to the moneys provided by Government.
What is essential is that the control and
management of the fund must vest in the authority.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Birla
Cotton, Spinning Weaving Mills Delhi & Anr. [1968] 3 S.C.R. 251 @ 288 and
Valjibhai Muljibhai Soneji and Anr. v. The State of Bombay (Now Gujarat) &
Ors. [1964] 3 S.C.R. 868, referred to.
The Delhi Development Authority is a body
corporate. It consists of a chairman, vice chairman and a certain number of
official members and non-official members who are representatives of the
Municipal Corporation Delhi to be elected by the Councillors and the aldermen of
the Municipal Corporation and three representatives of the Metropolitan Council
to be elected by that Council. The object with which the Authority is
established is "to promote and secure the development of Delhi according
to plan" in accordance with the provisions of the Act. [859 D-F] The
Authority is required to maintain its own Fund which was not a Consolidated
Fund or a separate Development Fund but is the Fund of the Development
Authority. To this Fund are to be credited all the moneys received from the
Central Government by way of grants, loans, advances or otherwise; all moneys
received by way of loans of debentures; all fees and charges received by the
Authority, all moneys received from the disposal of lands, buildings and other
properties, all moneys received by way of rents and profits or in any other
manner. The fund is required to be applied towards meeting the expenses
incurred by the Authority in the administration of the Act and for no other
purposes. The Act empowers the Authority to impose penalties on persons for
undertaking or carrying out development in contravention of the master plan or
without permission approval or sanction required to be given l? by the
Authority. [860 E-G] An equally important feature with which the Authority is clothed
is its power to make regulations-a power which is analogous to the power given
to municipalities to frame bye- laws. [862 G] The salient features of the Act
show that the Delhi Development Authority is constituted for the specific
purpose of planned development of Delhi which is a governmental function
ordinarily entrusted to municipal bodies. It has an element of popular
representation though some of the members are indirectly elected. It enjoys a
considerable degree of autonomy within the bounds prescribed by the Act. The
fact that some supervision is exercised by the Central Government does not
detract from the autonomy because the supervision exercised is the usual
supervisory power which every State Government exercises over municipalities,
District Boards etc. [863 A-D] The term "taxation" used with
reference to the power of a local authority to raise funds is to be understood
not in any fine and narrow sense to include 856 only compulsory exactions but
in a broad generic sense to include fees levied essentially for services
rendered. Today the distinction between a tax and a fee his withered away both
being compulsory exactions of money by a public authority. The crucial test is
to see whether the public authority is authorised by statute to make a
compulsory extension of money and not to see whether the money so exacted is to
be utilised for specific or general purposes.
[863 G-H] There is no valid reason to hold
that the betterment charge which the Authority can impose upon an owner of a
property in respect of the increase in the value of the property is a fee and
not a tax. The charge is not levied on the basis of the increase in the value
of property consequent on the development of the area. In other words it is a
charge on the accrued capital gain which may bear no proportion whatsoever to
the cost of development. [864 E] The fact that the Delhi Development Act refers
in several sections to "local authority concerned" meaning thereby
the ordinary local authority (as for example the Delhi Municipal Corporation)
functioning in the area discharging a multiplicity of civic functions as
distinguished from the Delhi Development Authority, which performs one of the
several functions that a local authority performs, is no ground for holding
that The Delhi Development Authority is not a local authority. The Authority is
endowed with all the usual attributes and characteristics of a local authority.
[864 H] Nor does the fact that other Municipal Acts provide for the
reconstitution of a dissolved or superseeded municipality while the Delhi
Development Act does not provide for such reconstitution of the Authority after
it fulfills its assigned functions make it any the less a local authority. By
the very nature of the work entrusted to it its life is transient; when the
work is accomplished and there is no need for its continued existence it is
dissolved. It is by what it is during its life and not by what its shape would
be after it has performed its assigned functions that it can be determined
whether the authority is a local authority as defined in the General Clauses
Act [865 B-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 3351 of 1979.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and
Order dated 27-2-1979 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No. 1139/78.
Abdul Khader, S. P. Nayar and Miss A.
Subhashini for the Appellant.
P. R. Mirdul and P. N. Gupta for Respondents
1-5.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.-The question for consideration in this appeal is whether
the Delhi Development Authority is a 'local Authority' whose employees are
taken out of the purview of the Payment of Bonus Act 1965, by Sec. 32(iv) of
that Act, which provides that I nothing in the Act shall apply to employees
employed by an establishment engaged in any industry carried on by or under the
authority of any Department of the Central Government or State Government or
857 a Local Authority. It appears that for about ten years prior to 197374
bonus was paid to the employees of the Delhi Development Authority but it was
stopped thereafter on the advice of the Ministry of Law. The employees
questioned the stoppage of the payment of bonus by filing Civil Writ Petition
No. 1139/79 in the Delhi High Court. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition
and the Union of India and the Delhi Development Authority have preferred this
appeal, after obtaining special leave of this Court under Art. 136 of the
Constitution. The expression 'Local Authority' is not defined in the payment of
Bonus Act. One must, therefore, turn to the General Clauses Act to ascertain
the meaning of the expression. S.3(31) defines Local Authority as follows:
"Local Authority shall mean a Municipal
Committee, District Board, Body of Port Commissioners or other authority
legally entitled to, or entrusted by the Government with the control or
management of a municipal or local fund".
'Local Fund' is again not defined in the
General Clauses Act. Though the expression appears to have received treatment
in the Fundamental Rules and the Treasury Code, we refrain from borrowing the
meaning attributed to the expression in those rules as it is not a sound rule
of interpretation to seek the meaning of words used in an Act, in the definition
clause of other statutes. The definition of an expression in one Act must not
be imported into another. "It would be a new terror in the construction of
Acts of Parliament if we were required to limit a word to an unnatural sense
because in some Act which is not incorporated or referred to such an
interpretation is given to it for the purposes of that Act alone" (per
Loreburn L.C. in Macbeth v. Chislett. For the same reason we refrain from
borrowing upon the definition of 'Local Authority' in enactments such as the
Cattle Trespass Act 1871 etc. as the High Court has done.
Let us, therefore, concentrate and confine
our attention and enquiry to the definition of 'Local Authority' in Sec.3(3) of
the General Clauses Act. A proper and careful scrutiny of the language of
Sec.3(31) suggests that an authority in order to be a local Authority, must be
of like nature and character as a Municipal Committee, District Board or Body
of Port Commissioners, possessing, therefore, many, if not all, of the
distinctive attributes and characteristics of a Municipal Committee, District
Board, or Body of Port Commissioners, but, possessing one essential feature,
namely, that it is legally entitled to or entrusted by the Government with, the
control and management. Of a municipal or local fund. What then are the
distinctive attributes 858 and characteristics, all or many of which a
Municipal Committee, District Board or Body of Port Commissioners shares with
any other local authority? First, the authorities must have separate legal
existence as Corporate bodies. They must not be mere Governmental agencies but
must be legally independent entities. Next, they must function in a defined
area and must ordinarily, wholly or partly, directly or indirectly, be elected
by the inhabitants of the area. Next, 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. Next, 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 we may say that they may be entrusted with the performance of civic
duties and functions which would otherwise be Governmental duties and
functions. Finally, 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 moneys 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.
In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Birla
Cotton, Spinning & Weaving Mills Delhi & Anr., Hidayatullah, J.,
described some of the attributes of local bodies in this manner:
"Local bodies are subordinate branches
of governmental activity. They are democratic institutions managed by the
representatives of the people. They function for public purposes and take away
a part of the government affairs in local areas. They are political sub
divisions and agencies which exercise a part of State functions. As they ale
intended to carry on local self-government the power of taxation is a necessary
adjunct to their other powers. They function under the supervision of the
Government".
In Valjibhai Muljibhai Soneji and Anr. v. The
State of Bombay (Now Gujarat) & Ors. one of the questions was -11 whether
the State Trading Corporation was a local Authority as 859 defined by Sec.
3(31) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. It was held A that it was not, because
it was not an authority legally entitled to or entrusted by the Government
with, control or management of a local fund. It was observed that though the
Corporation was furnished with funds by the Government for commencing its
business that would not make the funds of the Corporation 'local funds'.
Keeping in mind what we have said above, we
may now take a close look at the provisions of the Delhi Development Act. The
Delhi Development Act, 1957, is 'an Act to provide for the development of Delhi
according to plan and for matters ancillary thereto'. The act extends to the
whole of the Union Territory of Delhi. Sec. 2(d) defines
"development" as meaning, with its grammatical variations "the
carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over
or under land or the making of any material change in any building or land and
includes redevelopment'.' Sec. 3 empowers the Central Government to constitute
an authority to be called the Delhi Development Authority. The Authority is to
be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal, with the
usual corporate attributes. The authority is to consist of a chairman, a Vice
Chairman and a certain number of official and nonofficial members. The
non-official members are to include two representatives of the Municipal
Corporation of Delhi to be elected by the Councillors and aldermen of the
Municipal Corporation from among themselves and three representatives of the
Metropolitan Council for the Union Territory of Delhi to be elected by the
members of the Metropolitan Council from among themselves. The objects of the
authority as set out in Sec. 6 are "to promote and secure the development
of Delhi according to plan" and for that purpose to "have the power
to acquire, hold and dispose Of land and other property", and "to
carry out building, engineering, mining and other operations, to execute works
in connection with supply of water and electricity, disposal of sewage and
other services and amenities and generally to do anything necessary or
expedient for purposes of such development and for purposes incidental thereto".
Sec.7 requires the Authority to carry out a civic survey of, and prepare a
master plan for, Delhi. The master plan is to define various zones into which
Delhi may be divided for the purposes of development and indicate the manner in
which the land in each zone is proposed to be used (whether by the carrying out
thereon of development or otherwise) and the stages by which any such
development shall be carried out.
The master plan may also provide for any
other matter which is necessary for the proper development of Delhi. Sec.8
provides for the preparation of zonal development plans and Sec.8(2) prescribes
what a zonal deve- 860 lopment plan may contain or specify. Sec.9 provides for
the submission of all plans to the Central Government by the Authority for approval.
Sec. 12 empowers the Central Government to declare any area in Delhi to be a
'development area' for the purposes of the Act. It further provides that after
the commencement of the Act no development of land shall be undertaken or
carried out, without the permission of the Authority, if the area is a
development area, and without the approval or sanction of the local authority
concerned if the area is an area other than a development area. Sec.13
prescribes the procedure to be followed. IT provides for a fee (to be
prescribed by the Rules) to accompany every application to obtain permission
under Sec.
12. Sec. 15 empowers the Central Government
to acquire any land which is required for the purpose of development or for any
other purpose under the Act. After acquiring the land the Central Government
may transfer the land to the Authority or any local authority on payment by the
Authority or the local authority of the compensation awarded under the Land
Acquisition Act and all the charges incurred by the Government. Thereafter,
subject to any directions given by the Central Government the Authority or, as
the case may be, the local authority concerned may dispose of the land, after
or without undertaking or carrying out any development thereon, to such persons,
in such manner any subject to such` terms and conditions as it considers
expedient for securing the development of Delhi according to plan. Sec. 22
authorises the Central Government to place at the disposal of the Authority all
or any developed and undeveloped lands in Delhi vested in the Union for the
purpose of development in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Sec. 23
obliges the Authority to have and maintain its own fund to which are to be
credited- "(a) all moneys received by the Authority from the Central
Government by way of grants, loans, advances or otherwise:
(aa) all moneys received by the Authority
from sources other than the Central Government by way of loans or debentures:
(b) all fees and charges received by the
Authority under this Act;
(c) all moneys received by the Authority from
the disposal of lands, buildings and other properties, movable and Immovable;
and (d) all moneys received by the Authority by way of rents and profits or in
any other manner or from any other source." 861 The fund is required by
S.23(2) to be applied towards meeting the expenses incurred by the Authority in
the administration of the Act and for no other purposes. Sec. 24 enjoins a duty
on the authority to prepare a budget in respect of the financial year next
ensuing showing the estimated receipts and expenditure. Copies of the budget
are to be forwarded to the Central Government. Sec. 25 requires the accounts of
the Authority to be audited annually by the Comptroller and Auditor General of
India. Sec. 26 requires the Authority to prepare a report of its activities and
submit the same to the Central Government. Sec. 27 provides for the
constitution of pension and Provident Funds. Sec. 28 empowers the authority to
authorise any person to enter into or upon any land or building with or without
assistance of workmen for the purposes specified in the Section. Sec. 29
provides for penalties for persons undertaking or carrying out development in
contravention of the master plan or zonal development plan or without
permission, approval or sanction required by Sec. 12. Sec. 30 provides for the
making of an order of demolition of a building where development has been
commenced or completed in contravention of the master plan, zonal plans or the
permission, approval or sanction referred to in Sec. 12. Sec. 31 enables the
Authority to make an order requiring development to be discontinued where
development has been commenced in contravention of the master plan or zonal
development plan or without obtaining permission, approval or sanction as
required by Sec. 12.
Sec. 33 provides that all fines realised in
connection with prosecutions under the Act shall be paid to the Authority or,
as the case may be, the local authority concerned. Sec. 36 empowers the
Authority to require the local authority within whose local limits an area has
been developed to assume responsibility for the maintenance of amenities which
have been provided in the area by the Authority and for the provision of the
amenities which have not been provided by the Authority. Sec. 37 empowers the
Authority to levy upon the owner of a property or any person having an interest
therein a betterment charge in respect of the increase in value of the property
as a consequence of any development having been executed by the Authority in
any development area or as a consequence of any area other than a development
area having been benefited by the development, Sec. 38 provides for the
assessment of betterment charge by the Authority and Sec. 39 provides for the settlement
of betterment charges by Arbitrators to be appointed by the Central Government.
Sec.40(2) authorises the recovery of any arrear of betterment charge as an
arrear of land revenue.
Sec. 40A further provides that any money due
to the Authority on account of fees or charges, or from the disposal of lands,
buildings or other properties 862 to be recovered by the Authority as arrears
of land revenue.
Sec. 41 obliges the Authority to carry out
such directions as may be issued to it from time to time by the Central
Government. Sec. 42 requires the Authority to furnish reports, returns and
other information to the Central Government as may be required from time to
time. Sec. 46 provides for the authentication of permissions, orders,
decisions, notices and other documents by the Secretary or any other officer
authorised by the Authority in that behalf. Sec. 47 declares every member and
every officer and other employee of the Authority to be a public servant within
the meaning of Sec. 21 of the Indian Penal Code. Sec.
52 enables the Authority to delegate any
power exercisable by it under the Act except the power to make regulations to
such officer or local Authority as may be mentioned in the notification. Sec.
56 empowers the Central Government to make rules and Sec. 57 enables the
Authority, with the previous approval of the Central Government to make
regulations consistent with the Act and the rules made there under to carry out
the purposes of the Act. Every rule and every regulation made under the Act is required
to be laid before each House of Parliament by Sec. 58. Sec. 59 empowers the
Central Government to dissolve the authority if it is satisfied that the
purposes for which the authority was established have been substantially
achieved so as to render unnecessary its continued existence.
We see that the Delhi Development Authority
is constituted for the specific purpose of 'the development of Delhi according
to plan'. Planned development of towns is a Governmental function which is
traditionally entrusted by the various Municipal Acts in different States to
municipal bodies. With growing specialisation, along with the growth of titanic
metropolitan complexes, legislatures have felt the need for the creation of
separate town-planning or development authorities for individual cities. The
Delhi Development Authority is one such. It is thus an authority, to which is
entrusted by Statute a Governmental function ordinarily entrusted to municipal
bodies. An important feature of the entrustment of Governmental function is the
power given to the Authority to make regulations (which are required to be laid
before Parliament). The power to make regulation is analogous to the power
usually given to municipalities to frame bye-laws.
The activities of the Authority are limited
to the local area of the Union Territory of Delhi. The High Court appears to
have assumed that the Delhi Development Authority has extra-territorial powers
extending to peripheral areas in the adjoining States. There is no basis in the
Statute for the assumption made by the High Court.
863 There is then an element of popular
representation in the constitution of the Authority. Representatives of the
inhabitants of the locality, three elected from among the members of the Delhi
Municipal Corporation and two elected from among the members of the Delhi
Metropolitan Council, figure among its members.
What of autonomy? The Master Plan and the
Zonal plans prepared by the Authority have to be approved by the Central
Government, the budget has to be forwarded to the Central Government, annual
returns have to be submitted to the Government and the directions that the
Central Government may give have to be carried out. But within these bounds,
the Authority enjoys a considerable degree of autonomy, as is seen from the
summary of the provisions of the Act which has been set out by us. The powers
of the Central Government over the Delhi Development Authority are the usual
supervisory powers which every State Government exercises over municipalities,
district boards etc. Such powers of supervision do not make the municipalities
disautonomous and mere satellites.
We finally come to the important question
whether the legislature has vested any power of taxation in the Authority.
One of the submissions of the learned counsel
for the respondent was that the fund of the Authority, required to be
maintained by Sec. 23 of the Delhi Development Act, was not a local fund as no
part of it flowed directly from any taxing power vested in the Delhi
Development Authority. The submission of the learned counsel was that the fees
collected under Sec. 12 of the Act and the charges levied under Sec. 37 of the
Act did not part-take the character of tax but were mere fees which were the
quid pro quo for the services which were required to be performed by the Delhi
Development Authority under the Act. We were referred to Hingir-Rampur Coal Co.
Ltd. & Ors. v. The State of Orissa & Ors. We are unable to agree with
the submission made on behalf of the respondents. In the first place when it is
said that one of the attributes of a local authority is the power to raise
funds by the method of taxation, taxation is to be understood not in any fine
and narrow sense as to include only those compulsory exactions of money imposed
for public purpose and requiring no consideration to sustain it, but in a broad
generic sense as to also include fees levied essentially for services rendered.
It is now well recognised that there is no generic difference between a tax and
a fee;
both are compulsory exactions of money by
public authority.
In deciding the question whether an authority
is a local authority, our concern is only to find out whether the public 864
authority is authorised by Statute to make a compulsory exaction of money and
not with the further question whether the money so exacted is to be utilised
for specific or general purposes. In the second place the Delhi Development
Authority is constituted for the sole purpose of the planned development of
Delhi and no other purpose and there is a merger, as it were, of specific and
general purposes. The statutory situation is such that the distinction between
tax and fee has withered away. In the third place we see no reason to hold that
the charge contemplated by Sec. 37 is a fee and not a tax. The case cited: The
Hingir-Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. The State of Orissa & Ors., has
no application. That was a case where the Government was empowered to levy a
cess for the purpose of the development of the mining areas in the State. The
cess levied was not to become a part of the consolidated fund and was not
subject to an appropriation in that behalf; it went into the special fund
earmarked for carrying out the purpose of the Act.
There was a definite correlation between the
proposed services and the impost levied and it could e legitimately claimed
that the rate-payer in substance was compensating the State for the services
rendered by it to him. In the present case there is no consolidated fund and no
separate development fund. There is only one fund, the Fund of the Delhi
Development Authority. What is more important, nor is there any question of any
co-relation between the betterment charge and the expenditure incurred by the
Authority in carrying out the purposes of the Act. The charge is not levied on
the basis of the expenditure incurred. It is levied on the basis of the
increase in the value of the property consequent on the development of the
area; one may say the charge is on the accrued capital gain; it may bear no
proportion whatsoever to the cost of development.
A submission of the learned counsel was that
the Delhi Development Act itself referred in several places to local
authorities as distinguished from Delhi Development Authority. It is true that
in Sections 12, 15, 30, 31, 34, 36, 42 and some other provisions we find a
reference to 'local authority concerned' meaning thereby the ordinary local
authority functioning in the area discharging a multiplicity of civic
functions. The Delhi Municipal Corporation for example is one such local authority.
The Delhi Development Authority is constituted for performing one of the
several functions which a local authority may perform. That the local
authorities performing other functions are referred to as 'local authorities'
in the Act by which the Delhi Development Authority is created, while the Delhi
Development Authority is referred to as the Authority, is no ground for holding
865 that the Delhi Development Authority is not a 'local authority' as defined
by Sec.3(31) of the General Clauses Act. The Delhi Development Authority is
endowed with all the usual attributes and characteristics of a 'local
authority' and there is no reason to hold that it is not a 'local authority'.
Another submission of the learned counsel
which was pressed upon us was that every statute dealing with municipalities
and providing for their supersession and/or dissolution invariably provided for
reconstitution of the municipality after a stipulated period whereas
dissolution in the case of the Delhi Development Authority meant a complete
extinction of the authority since the Act did not provide for its
reconstitution. Our attention was drawn to the municipalities Acts of various
States. We are unable to see the force of the submission. The very nature of
the work entrusted by the legislature to the development authority is such that
its life can be but transient. When the work is accomplished and there is no
need for its continued existence it is dissolved and its life becomes extinct.
It is by what it is during its life and not by the consideration whether there
is life after death and whether it can have many lives, that we determine whether
the Delhi Development Authority is a local authority as defined in S.3(31) of
the General Clauses Act.
On a consideration of all the aspects of the
matter placed before us we are of the opinion that the Delhi Development
Auhority is a Local Authority and therefore, the provision of the Payment of
Bonus Act are not attracted. The result, therefore, is that the appeal is
allowed and the Writ Petition filed in the High Court is dismissed. However, we
do wish to observe that the Delhi Development Authority may not only be a model
for development activities but may strive to be a model employer too. Bonus was
paid to the employees for over ten years and we were not told of any reason for
withdrawing this benefit from the employees.
Merely because the Law Department advised
that they were not bound to pay bonus, they were not obliged to withdraw the
benefit. The question which ought to have been considered was not whether they
were legally bound to pay bonus but whether in the context of sound
management-labour relations, bonus should continue to be paid. It is a matter
which we earnestly desire the Delhi Development Authority may reconsider. There
is no order as to costs.
P.B.R. Appeal allowed.
Back
