Annasaheb Asaram Dahihande vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

Facts

Multiple writ petitions were filed by contractual ambulance drivers challenging the termination of their services and non-payment of salaries by Zilla Parishads and contractors. The petitioners had been engaged through contractors for ambulance services, and their contracts were terminated, leading to significant salary arrears ranging from 12 to 15 months. The State of Maharashtra, through the Joint Director of Health Services, had issued communications regarding the payment of salaries and the format for submitting details. The Zilla Parishads were called upon to provide details of funds required for monthly salaries. The core issue revolved around the payment of salaries and the continuation of services for these contractual drivers.

Held

The Court directed that the minimum pay scale at the lowest grade applicable to regular employees holding the same post should be paid to the petitioners until further orders. Their services were not to be terminated without leave of the Court, solely in relation to their contractual employment. The Court acknowledged the significant salary arrears and directed the concerned Zilla Parishads to intimate the Joint Director of Health Services about the quantum of unpaid salaries within 10 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 also held that the Zilla Parishad or Contractor would have to assess arrears from the filing dates of the writ petitions and make payments in installments if not in a lump sum. The Court further directed that the Principal Employer should directly make payments to the contractual ambulance drivers via bank transactions, which would not be grounds for alleging a sham contract or establishing an employer-employee relationship with the Zilla Parishad. If terminated, drivers were at liberty to raise industrial disputes. The Court also clarified that its directions would not prevent the State Government from framing a scheme in line with Supreme Court judgments.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Zilla Parishads, as principal employers, are obligated to directly pay the salaries of contractual ambulance drivers, especially when contractors have failed to do so, and what is the extent of this obligation? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners argued that despite being contractual employees, their services and salaries were being withheld, and they sought direction for direct payment by the principal employer (Zilla Parishad) to ensure they receive their dues. They relied on principles of natural justice and relevant Supreme Court judgments concerning contractual employment and payment of wages. Revenue's Argument: The State and Zilla Parishads' stance, as reflected in the court's directions, was to facilitate the payment of salaries, either directly or through a structured process, to resolve the issue of unpaid wages. They were directed to provide details and initiate steps for payment.