Bombay High Court
Malkapur Nagarpanchayat, Malkapur vs Jayram Nivrutti Karade on 9 November, 2022
Author: M. S. Karnik
Bench: M. S. Karnik
15.wpst 10832.22.doc
Urmila Ingale
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
URMILA
Digitally
signed by
URMILA
PRAMOD
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PRAMOD INGALE
INGALE Date:
2022.11.10
WRIT PETITION NO. 10832 OF 2022
18:56:58
+0530
Malkapur Nagarpanchayat, Malkapur and anr... Petitioners
vs.
Jayram Nivrutti Karade ..Respondent
Mr. Umesh R. Mankapure a/w Mr. Abhishek Nandimath, for
petitioners.
Mr. Vinayak Kumbhar i/b Mr. A.N. Bandiwadekar, for
respondent.
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.
DATE : NOVEMBER 9, 2022
ORAL ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The challenge in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to an order dated 02/03/2020 passed by the Industrial Court, Satara in Complaint (ULP) No. 9 of 2013. By the impugned order dated 02/03/2020, the Industrial Court partly allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner-Nagarparishad to pay admissible subsistence allowance treating the respondent to be an 1
15.wpst 10832.22.doc employee of the Nagarparishad.
2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent has not been absorbed by the Nagarparishad. It is his submission that the respondent continues to be an employee of the grampanchayat, Malkapur. Admittedly, the respondent was an employee of the grampanchayat, Malkapur. In the year 2008, grampanchayat, Malkapur was converted into Nagarpanchayat-Malkapur (presently Nagarparishad- Malkapur). It is submitted by learned counsel that the proposal was submitted by the Nagarparishad for absorbing the employees of the grampanchayat. According to him, not all the employees are absorbed. It is further submitted that in view of section 76 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereafter "the said Act", for short), the power to appoint the employees on the establishment of the Nagarparishad is with the Competent Authority of the Nagarparishad. He submits that the Industrial Court has committed an error in holding that the respondent is an 2
15.wpst 10832.22.doc employee of the Nagarparishad. It is submitted that the respondent is not appointed in terms of section 76 of the said Act and therefore the respondent is entitled for subsistence allowance as admissible to an employee of the grampanchayat and not as an employee of the Nagarparishad. It is one of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that on 02/02/2011, a resolution was passed by the Nagarparishad that the employees against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending will not be absorbed and hence, even on the basis of such resolution, the respondent is not entitled to subsistence allowance as an employee of the Nagarparishad.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the impugned order. Learned counsel submitted that the proposal to absorb the respondent was approved by the Nagarparishad and the respondent's name was shown at serial 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners interjected saying that though the communication mentions that the proposal has been approved, however, factually, there is no appointment order issued in favour of the 3
15.wpst 10832.22.doc respondent so as to enable him to claim a status as an employee of the Nagarparishad.
4. I have gone through the impugned order. The Industrial Court has directed the Nagarparishad to pay the subsistence allowance to the respondent by treating him as an employee of the Nagarpanchayat. The disciplinary proceedings have been initiated by the petitioners against the respondent on the ground that the respondent has committed misappropriation of Rs.370/-. The respondent participated in the enquiry. It is stated across the bar that the enquiry has been completed and even the Enquiry Officer's report has been supplied to the respondent to which he has duly replied as far back as in 2015. No final order has been passed so far. It is obviously open for the Nagarparishad to take the disciplinary proceedings to its logical conclusion and in any case, the same is not the subject matter of the present petition.
5. Suffice it to observe that the respondent was admittedly an employee of the erstwhile grampanchayat, Malkapur. The grampanchayat then converted into 4
15.wpst 10832.22.doc Nagarparishad, Malkapur. The grampanchayat, Malkapur is now no longer in existence. The disciplinary action has been taken against the respondent after the conversion and the proposal for absorbing the respondent was approved by the order dated 19/10/2010. The disciplinary authority who has initiated the action against the respondent is the Chief Executive Officer of the petitioner-Nagarparishad. Once the disciplinary action has been taken by the Chief Executive Officer of the Nagarparishad under the provisions of the said Act, upon the grampanchayat ceasing to exist, the respondent has to be regarded as an employee of the Nagarparishad for the purpose of subsistence allowance. There cannot be a situation where the Chief Executive Officer initiates disciplinary proceedings against the respondent who is working under his control as an employee of the Nagarparishad, but for the purpose of payment of subsistence allowance contend that the respondent is an employee of the grampanchayat and not of the Nagarparishad. The issue of absorption has nothing to do with payment of subsistence allowance as in any case 5
15.wpst 10832.22.doc the respondent is discharging duties for the Nagarparishad. Having carefully perused the order of the Industrial Court, I find no perversity with the view taken to warrant interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
6. The petition is rejected with no order as to costs.
(M. S. KARNIK, J.) 6