Datta Nanasaheb Lahane vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

Facts

This judgment consolidates numerous writ petitions filed by ambulance drivers challenging the termination of their services and non-payment of salaries. The petitioners were contractual employees engaged through contractors for Zilla Parishads. The State of Maharashtra, through the Directorate of Health Services, issued a communication on January 24, 2023, directing Zilla Parishads to submit details of salaries payable to contractual drivers, including GST, and the funds required for monthly payments. The petitioners had not been paid salaries for periods ranging from 12 to 15 months. The Court considered the communication from the State and the fact that contractors had deployed these drivers before their contracts were terminated.

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 noted that the petitioners had not been paid salaries for 12 to 15 months and, in light of the State's communication dated January 24, 2023, directed the Zilla Parishads to intimate the Joint Director of Health Services, Mumbai, about the quantum of unpaid salaries within 10 days. 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 Parishads or contractors 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 to directly make payments to the contractual drivers via bank transactions, stating this would not be a ground for alleging a sham contract or establishing an employer-employee relationship for regularization purposes. The Court clarified that contractual employees shall not be replaced by new contractual employees, but exceptions exist for misconduct, misdemeanor, death, or similar reasons, with preference to be given to previously engaged drivers if replacements are necessary. The Court also noted that its conclusions in Dhiraj Sudhakarrao Wankhede would not prevent the State from framing a scheme under the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi. The Court expressly left undecided the issue of regularization of services, referencing the judgments cited by the petitioners.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Zilla Parishads, as the principal employers, are obligated to directly pay the salaries of the contractual ambulance drivers, considering the termination of contracts with the deploying agencies, and whether this would establish an employer-employee relationship between the drivers and the Zilla Parishads under the principles laid down in relevant Supreme Court judgments (Ashok Dhondiba Meher, Vividh Kamgar Sabha, Cipla Ltd., Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Water Front Workers, and Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi). Contentions: Petitioner: Argued for direct payment of salaries by the principal employer and sought continuation of their services, citing the communication from the Directorate of Health Services. They relied on Supreme Court judgments establishing principles for regularization and direct payment in cases of prolonged contractual employment. Revenue/State: Submitted a communication dated January 24, 2023, indicating a process for Zilla Parishads to provide details for salary payments, including GST. The State did not explicitly argue against the direct payment but rather outlined a procedural step. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the State against the core claims of the petitioners regarding salary payment or against the applicability of the cited Supreme Court precedents.