Laxman Raosaheb Kadam vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

Facts

Multiple writ petitions were filed by contractual ambulance drivers engaged through contractors by various Zilla Parishads in Maharashtra. The petitioners alleged non-payment of salaries for extended periods, 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, including GST, and the quantum of funds required. The Zilla Parishads were called upon to provide details of salaries payable to these drivers. The petitions also concerned the termination of contractual employment and the non-payment of bills by contractors.

Held

The Court directed that the minimum pay scale at the lowest grade in the regular pay scale for 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, solely in relation to their contractual employment. The Court mandated that the concerned Zilla Parishads would intimate the Joint Director of Health Services about the quantum of unpaid salaries, and the annexed chart would be filled and submitted within 10 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 the Principal Employer (Zilla Parishad or Contractor) would make the assessment of arrears and pay them, if not in lump sum, then in twelve equated monthly installments. The Court held that the Principal Employer should directly make payments to the contractual drivers via bank transactions, 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 the conclusions in Dhiraj Sudhakarrao Wankhede (supra) would not prevent the State Government from framing a scheme as per Secretary, State of Karnataka v/s Umadevi (supra). The Court expressly left undecided the issue of regularization of services, referring to the possibility of the State Government framing a scheme.

Key Issues

1. Whether the contractual ambulance drivers are entitled to receive their salaries directly from the Principal Employer (Zilla Parishad) in light of non-payment by contractors, and what is the appropriate mechanism for such payment, considering the principles laid down in Ashok Dhondiba Meher (supra)? 2. Whether the contractual employees' services should be protected from termination without leave of the court, and if so, to what extent, considering their contractual employment status? 3. Whether the State Government is precluded from framing a scheme for regularization of services in view of the judgment in Dhiraj Sudhakarrao Wankhede (supra) and the principles in Secretary, State of Karnataka v/s Umadevi (supra)? Petitioner's arguments likely centered on the non-payment of wages, the responsibility of the Principal Employer to ensure payment, and the need for protection against arbitrary termination. The Revenue/State's arguments would likely address the contractual nature of employment, the role of contractors, and the process for fund allocation and payment, including GST implications.