JAGANNATH BARIK Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this batch of writ applications, challenge has been made by the petitioners to the orders of the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar, passed under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, allowing the claim of bonus and differential house rent allowances of the employees of the Board, and in one case (O. J. C. No. 2879/90) refusing such claim to the employee. As common questions of fact and law are involved in all these applications, the petitions were heard analogously with the consent of the counsel for both the parties, and these are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE facts of the case may be briefly stated thus: The petitioners in all the cases except one, are employees of the Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board which is a statutory board constituted under the Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1955 (Orissa Act 3/1956); for the purpose of organising, developing and regulating the Khadi and Village Industries in the State of Orissa. The functions and activities of the Board are governed by the aforesaid Act (for short, "1955 Act") and a set of rules, Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board Rules, 1956 (for short, "1956 Rules") and a set of regulations known as Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board Regulations, 1960 (for short "1960 Regulations" ). Although the Board is a public undertaking of the State Government and the State Government has direct control over the activities of the Board, and the employees are also governed mainly by the conditions of service provided for in Orissa Service Code, which is applicable to all the Government servants, yet the Board has been adjudicated by this Court to be Industry as defined in Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short, "i. D. Act" ). The Board is, therefore, recognised as an industry for the purpose of the I. D. Act. The employees of the Board were not being paid any bonus, but they were being paid house rent allowance on similar lines with the State Government employees in accordance with the guidelines of the Finance Department Resolution governing the field from time to time. The employees made a grievance about the house rent allowances when it was reduced from 12 1/2% of the basic pay to 7 1/2% from the year 1976. They also made a claim of entitlement to bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (for short, "bonus Act" ). The Board had raised objections to these claims of the employees in its written statement filed before the Labour Court in all these proceedings. It had contended, inter alia, that the employees of the Board are not entitled to payment of bonus as the Board is covered by the exception provided under Section 32 (iv) of the Bonus Act, which states that nothing in this 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 a State Government or local authority. According to the Board, as it is run by and under the authority of the Department of Industry of the State, it is not liable to pay Bonus to its employees. As to the payment of differential house rent allowances, the Board has contended that house rent allowance is being paid to the employees like the employees of the State Government in accordance with the guide-lines provided by the State Government in F. D. Resolutions from time to time. In consequence of pay revisions effected in the year 1974, the house rent allowance was reduced to 7 1/2 % in the case of the employees, and as such the employees are not entitled to 12 1/2% house rent allowance with effect from 1976 as claimed by them.

(3.) IN this batch of writ applications, similar contentions have been raised before this Court by the Board with regard to the claim of the bonus and differential house rent allowances. The three-fold contentions raised by the Board to challenge the orders of the Labour Court are that: