Dhanraj Shivji Sonwane vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

Facts

The petitioners, contractual ambulance drivers, approached the Bombay High Court seeking payment of their salaries, which had been unpaid for 12 to 15 months. The services were initially provided through contractors engaged by Zilla Parishads. The State of Maharashtra, through the Joint Director of Health Services, had issued a communication on January 24, 2023, outlining a format for Zilla Parishads to report unpaid salaries and the quantum of funds required for monthly payments. The Court was considering multiple writ petitions related to the employment and payment of these contractual drivers.

Held

The Court directed that the petitioners, as contractual ambulance drivers, be paid salaries at par with the minimum pay scale of regular employees holding the same post until further orders. Their services were not to be terminated without leave of the Court, specifically concerning their contractual employment. The Court mandated that the concerned Zilla Parishads fill in a chart detailing unpaid salaries, as per the communication dated January 24, 2023, and submit it to the Joint Director of Health Services within ten days. The Directorate of Health Services was expected to initiate steps to ensure monthly salaries are paid from March 2023. The Court also directed that payments be made directly to the drivers' bank accounts by the Principal Employer (Zilla Parishad or Contractor) to avoid issues of non-payment by contractors. Arrears were to be assessed from the filing of the writ petitions and paid in installments if not lump-sum. Contractual employees were not to be replaced by new ones, except in cases of misconduct, death, or other valid reasons, with preference given to previously engaged drivers if replacement was necessary. The Court clarified that direct payment by the Principal Employer would not establish an employer-employee relationship with the Zilla Parishad or Principal Employer for the purpose of deeming the contract sham. The Court also noted that the State Government could frame a scheme in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v/s Umadevi, if desired.

Key Issues

1. Whether the contractual ambulance drivers are entitled to receive their unpaid salaries for periods ranging between 12 to 15 months, and if so, from whom and in what manner. 2. Whether the services of the petitioners, as contractual ambulance drivers, can be terminated without leave of the Court, and if they can be replaced by new contractual employees. Petitioner's arguments likely centered on the non-payment of wages despite rendering services, the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' implicitly, and the need for the Court's intervention to ensure their livelihood. They would have relied on the communication from the Joint Director of Health Services as evidence of the State's acknowledgment of the issue. The revenue/State's arguments would have focused on the contractual nature of the employment, the role of contractors, and the process for disbursing funds, potentially referencing the need for proper procedural compliance and budgetary allocations.