GRAM PANCHAYAT SAWARGAON Vs. JAMNAPRASAD RAGHUNATH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner, gram panchayat, Sawargaon, seeks quashing of the orders of the district industrial court and the State industrial court. The State industrial court by its final order has declared that the change made by the petitioner panchayat in altering the pay and emoluments of Jamnaprasad (respondent 1) is an illegal change within the meaning of S. 41 of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947. The facts giving rise to this petition may now be briefly stated.

(2.) Jamnaprasad was employed as a poundkeeper by the janpad sabha, Katol. Janpad sabha was a local authority constitute under the Central Provinces and Berar Local Government Act, 1948, in the old State of Madhya Pradesh. These local Governments continued to function even after the reorganization of the State until the pattern was changed by the Zilla, Parishads Act. Under S. 49 of the Central Provinces and Berar Local Government Act, establishment and maintenance of cattle-pounds was one of the compulsory functions to be performed by the janpad sabha. Accordingly a cattle-pound was maintained by the janpad sabha, Katol, at village Sawargaon up to 1959. The new State of Bombay passed an Act called Bombay Act 3 of 1959, the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. On the coming into force of this Act in the Vidarbha region all the existing panchayats constituted under the Central Provinces and Berar Panchayats Act are deemed to have been constituted panchayats under the new Bombay Act. Thus the petitioner-panchayat became a panchayat constituted under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. Under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act every gram panchayat is required to appoint a place within the local limits of its jurisdiction to be a public pound and to appoint a keeper of such pound and the person to be appointed as keeper must be approved by the District Magistrate. Elaborate provisions are made regarding the establishment and functions of the cattle-pound in Chap. XIII of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. We shall have occasion to refer to these provisions a little later. In view of the coming into force of these provisions of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, it was obvious that the cattlepound at village Sawargaon could only function under the control of the janpad sabha, Kotal, but stood transferred, or had to be transferred, to the control and management of the gram panchayat at Sawargaon. Then a question arose as to service of the poundkeeper who was already employed for the cattle-pound at Sawargaon. The janpad sabha as well as the panchayat seemed to have been advised by the local authority to arrive at some understanding in respect of the pound-keepers. In pursuance of this directive, a conference seems to have been held on 26 November, 1959, between the members of the janpad sabha, Katol, and the office-bearers of the petitioner gram panchayat and it was decided that the cattlepound at Sawargaon shall stand transferred for management and control to the gram panchayat at Sawargaon, that is, the petitioner, from 1 December, 1959. It was further agreed that whosoever was working and employed in the cattle-pound would continue to do so under the control and management of the appropriate village panchayat. In pursuance of this agreement, the services of Jamnaprasad (respondent 1) stood transferred to the petitioner gram panchayat and he became an employee of the petitioner gram panchayat. It is also clear that at the relevant time when Jamanaprasad's services stood transferred, he was drawing a substantive pay of Rs. 10 per month and a dearness allowance of Rs. 40 per month. In all, he was getting Rs. 50. This was also apparently agreed to by the successor authority, namely, the gram panchayat of Sawargaon, the petitioner.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that it was getting a reimbursement to the extent of Rs. 20 out of the dearness allowance of Rs. 40 payable to respondent 1 from the Government till 1962 and on that footing it had agreed and continued to pay respondent 1 his emoluments comprising substantive salary of Rs. 10 per month and dearness allowance of Rs. 40 per month. But later on, State Government refused to make any contribution towards the dearness allowance of respondent 1 and, therefore, the petitioner decided, by resolution of 5 September, 1962, that thereafter he should be paid Rs. 10 as substantive salary and Rs. 20 per month as dearness allowance. In other words, obviously there was a change in the conditions of service in the matter of dearness allowance brought about by the petitioner in respect of Jamnaprasad.