Rakesh Suresh Pawar 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 its Directorate of Health Services, issued a communication on January 24, 2023, directing Zilla Parishads to submit details of salaries payable to these contractual drivers, including GST, and the funds required for monthly payments. The Court was dealing with numerous petitions concerning similar grievances of these drivers.

Held

The Court directed that the Petitioners be paid salaries at par with the minimum pay scale of regular employees holding the same post until further orders. Their services were also protected from termination without leave of the Court, solely based on their contractual employment. The Court noted the communication from the State dated January 24, 2023, and directed the Zilla Parishads to intimate the Joint Director of Health Services 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 also directed that arrears of payments should be made, if not in lump sum, then in twelve equated monthly installments. The Principal Employer was directed to directly pay salaries via bank transactions, which would not be a ground to allege a sham contract or establish an employer-employee relationship with the Zilla Parishad. The Court also clarified that any contractual ambulance drivers terminated or disengaged could raise an industrial dispute. The Court also noted that the State Government could frame a scheme in light of the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v/s Umadevi (supra).

Key Issues

1. Whether the contractual ambulance drivers are entitled to receive their unpaid salaries for the period they have worked, considering the communication issued by the Directorate of Health Services? 2. What is the appropriate mechanism for ensuring the payment of salaries to these contractual drivers, especially in light of the termination of contracts with agencies? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that they have not been paid salaries for extended periods and that the State's communication dated January 24, 2023, acknowledges the need to address this issue. They sought directions for the immediate payment of their outstanding wages. Revenue/State's arguments: The State, through its communication, indicated a willingness to address the salary payment issue. The Court considered this communication as a basis for its directions. The judgment does not explicitly record separate arguments from the revenue or state beyond their participation in the process leading to the communication.