http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: TAMIL NADU WATER SUPPLY & DRAINAGE BOARD

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: TAMIL NADU WATER SUPPLY & DRAINAGE BOARD ENGINEERS’ASSOCIATI

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       24/03/1998

BENCH: K. VENKATASWAMI, A.P. MISRA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E  N T K. Venkataswami, J.      The  common   question   of   law   that   arises   for consideration in  all these  appeals filed  against a common judgment of  the Madras  High Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 1205 to 1210  of 1984  and 250 of 1985, is whether the Tamil Nadu Water Supply  & Drainage Board is an institution established not for  purposes of  profit and  consequently excluded from the purview of section 32(v)(c) of the payment of Bonus Act, 1965.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides and perused the judgment  of  the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  court carefully and  we find  that on  the facts placed before the Division Bench,  the conclusions  reached thereon  cannot be faulted. The  learned Judges,  after elaborately considering the matter  concerning the  establishment of  the appellant- board and its functions, found as follows:-      "We have  no manner  of doubt  that      the   respondent-Board   has   been      established  to  serve  the  public      interest   by    ensuring    better      amenities of  life and  raising the      standard of living of the community      as a  whole. Learned  single  Judge      has referred  to the  functions  of      the  Board   and  its   powers  and      rightly  held   that  the   purpose      behind the  functions of  the Board      is to  provide  protected  drinking      water    supply     and    drainage      facilities, but this also cannot be      disputed that the Board has got its      own assets and liabilities, that it      has got  its method  of recovery of      the  cost  of  the  scheme,  making      investment  and   constituting  its      funds by "all moneys received by or      on behalf  of  the  Board....,  all      proceeds of land or any  other kind      of property  sold by the Board, all

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    charges, all  interest, profits and      other moneys  accruing to the Board      and  all   moneys  and   receipts",      deposited into  the public accounts      of  the   Government   under   such      detailed head of accounts as may be      prescribed or  in the  Reserve Bank      of India,  State Bank  of India  or      any  corresponding   new  bank   as      defined in  the  Banking  Companies      (Acquisition   and    Transfer   of      Undertakings)  Act,  1970.  It  has      thus a  scheme of  profit and loss.      it shall  earn profit  in some year      and lose  in another year. Thus, in      its commercial  activities of sort,      it has  got a  capital structure of      profit,  liabilities   and   labour      force to care for. We see reason to      hold in  accordance with  the  rule      indicated by  the Supreme  Court in      the   case    of   workmen,    T.T.      Devasthanams Vs.  management  (1980      LIC  389)  that  the  Board  is  an      institution designed  for profit in      the limited  sense  that  when  the      Government’s  department  found  it      difficult  to   run  such  projects      departmentally,  they   decided  to      create a  Board and transferred the      projects to  ensure that  there was      proper service  to the community at      large on  the one  hand and  on the      other, there was no pressure on the      meagre revenue  and other resources      of the State.      Applying the test as above, we have      no hesitation  in holding  that the      learned Single  judge has fallen in      error   in    holding   that    the      respondent-Board is  an institution      established  not  for  purposes  of      profit.  Employees   of  the  Board      qualifying for  bonus under Act, in      our  opinion,   are   entitled   to      minimum amount of bonus and/or such      amount computed  in accordance with      law  upon   the  surplus   in   the      accounting year."      While reaching the above conclusion, the Division Bench has noticed another judgment of the High Court in Tamil Nadu State Housing  Board Vs.  subanayagam and  other cases.  The said judgment  of the  High Court  came up before this Court and this  Court in  State of  Tamil  Nadu  representated  by secretary, Housing  Deptt., Madras Vs. k. Sabanayagam & Anr. [JT 1997(9)  S.C. 316],  has upheld the judgment of the High Court holding that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board was governed by the  provisions of the payment of Bonus Act. In paragraph 16 of  the said  judgment of  this Court, it was observed as follows:-      "We may  mention that by a decision      of a Bench of two learned Judges of      this Court  in the  case of Housing      Board of Haryana v. Haryana Housing      Board Employees’  Union  and  other

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

    [JT 1995 (8) S.C. 37 = (1996) 1 SCC      95] Bonus Act is held applicable to      Haryana Housing  Board  by  holding      applicable to Haryana Housing Board      by holding  that it is not entitled      to statutory exemption from the Act      under  Section   32  as   a   local      authority.  we  are  informed  that      accordingly bonus  is being paid by      the said  Board to its employees as      per the Bonus Act."      It is not in dispute that the appellant has been paying though not  in the  name of  bonus every  year either in the name of ex-gratia payment or under some other name. No doubt Mr.  Krishnamurthy,   learned  counsel   appearing  for  the appellant-Board, argued  at length  to persuade  us to  hold that  the  appellant-board  will  come  under  the  exempted category under Section 32(v) (c) of the Act. However, we are unable to  persuade ourselves  to take a different view from the one taken by the High Court on the facts as found by it. we are  satisfied that  the judgment  of the High Court does not call  for any  interference. The  appeals fail  and  are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.