Asef Ahmad Shaikh vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

Facts

Numerous writ petitions were filed by contractual ambulance drivers challenging the non-payment of their salaries for periods ranging from 12 to 15 months. The petitioners were engaged through contractors by various Zilla Parishads. The State of Maharashtra, through the Joint Director of Health Services, had issued communications regarding the payment of salaries, including GST, and the format for submitting details of unpaid salaries. The Zilla Parishads were called upon to provide the quantum of funds required for monthly salaries. The petitions also raised concerns about the termination of services and the non-payment of bills by contractors.

Held

The Court directed that the minimum pay scale at the lowest grade of regular employees holding the same post shall be paid to the petitioners until further orders. Their services were also protected from termination without leave of the Court, specifically concerning their contractual employment. The Court directed the concerned Zilla Parishads to intimate the Joint Director of Health Services about the quantum of unpaid salaries within ten days, using a specified chart. The Directorate of Health Services was expected to initiate steps to ensure monthly salaries are paid from March 2023. The Court further directed that the Zilla Parishad or Contractor must assess arrears from the filing dates of the writ petitions and make payments, either lump-sum or in twelve equated monthly installments. The Court also directed the Principal Employer (Zilla Parishad or Contractor) to directly make payments of salaries to the contractual ambulance drivers via bank transfers, which would not be a ground for alleging a sham contract or establishing an employer-employee relationship with the Zilla Parishad. The Court also noted that contractual employees shall not be replaced by new contractual employees, with exceptions for misconduct, misdemeanor, or death. It was also held that if any contractual ambulance drivers were terminated or disengaged, they are at liberty to raise an industrial dispute. The Court clarified that its conclusions in Dhiraj Sudhakarrao Wankhede would not prevent the State Government from framing a scheme under the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v/s Umadevi. Finally, it was held that the Zilla Parishads or State Government would adjust these direct salary payments against the bills of the contractors and service charges.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Zilla Parishads, as principal employers, are obligated to directly pay the salaries of contractual ambulance drivers, including GST, considering the non-payment by contractors? (This issue pertains to the employer's responsibility and the applicability of GST on payments made directly by the principal employer). 2. Whether the contractual employees' services can be terminated without leave of the Court, particularly in light of the non-payment of salaries? (This issue concerns the protection of contractual employment during salary disputes). 3. Whether the Zilla Parishads should be directed to make payments of arrears and future salaries directly to the ambulance drivers? Petitioner's arguments likely centered on the fundamental right to receive wages for work done and the failure of contractors to fulfill their obligations, necessitating direct intervention by the principal employer. They would have argued for the direct payment of salaries and the continuation of their services. Revenue/State's arguments, as inferred from the court's directions, would have focused on the procedural aspects of salary disbursement, the role of contractors, and the inclusion of GST in the payment structure. They would have also likely addressed the legal framework governing contractual employment and the potential for framing schemes for regularization.