Shaikh Irfan Shaikh Babu vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

Facts

Multiple 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 Zilla Parishads. The State of Maharashtra, through the Joint Director of Health Services, had issued communications regarding the payment of salaries, including GST. The Zilla Parishads were called upon to provide details of funds required for monthly salaries. The petitioners sought directions for payment of their dues and continuation of their services. The Court considered communications from the State and the Zilla Parishads concerning the financial aspects of salary payments, including GST.

Held

The Court partly allowed the writ petitions with several directions. It directed that the minimum pay scale at the lowest grade of regular employees holding the same post should 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 quantum of unpaid salaries to the Joint Director of Health Services within 10 days, using a specified format. The Directorate of Health Services was expected to initiate steps to ensure monthly salaries are paid from March 2023. The Court held that the Principal Employer (Zilla Parishad or Contractor) would have to assess arrears from the filing dates of the petitions and make payments, possibly in installments. The service conditions of the petitioners would be maintained as long as the scheme lasts, and they should not be replaced by new contractual employees, with exceptions for misconduct or other valid reasons. The Court directed the Principal Employer to directly make payments to the drivers via bank transactions, clarifying this would not establish an employer-employee relationship for the purpose of alleging a sham contract. It also noted that if drivers were terminated, they could raise industrial disputes. The Court clarified that its conclusions would not prevent the State from framing a scheme under the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v/s Umadevi (supra). Finally, it held that the Principal Employer could adjust these direct payments against contractor bills and service charges.

Key Issues

1. Whether the contractual ambulance drivers are entitled to receive their salaries directly from the Principal Employer (Zilla Parishad) or the State Government, considering the non-payment by contractors. 2. Whether the service conditions of the contractual ambulance drivers should be maintained as long as the scheme lasts, and if they can be replaced by new contractual employees. 3. Whether the Principal Employer is obligated to make direct payments to the contractual ambulance drivers, and if such direct payment would establish an employer-employee relationship. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued for the direct payment of their salaries by the Zilla Parishads or the State, citing non-payment by contractors. They also contended for the continuation of their service conditions and protection against arbitrary termination or replacement. They relied on Supreme Court judgments concerning contractual employment and wage payments. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the revenue or state in opposition to the core claims regarding salary payments. However, the State's communications indicate a process for assessing and disbursing funds, including GST, suggesting their involvement in the payment mechanism.