Tikaram Mitram Jadhav vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

Facts

Numerous writ petitions were filed by ambulance drivers, challenging the termination of their services and non-payment of salaries by contractors. The petitioners were engaged through contractors for ambulance services, often funded by 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 direct payment. The Zilla Parishads were asked to provide details of unpaid salaries for periods ranging from 12 to 15 months. The Court was considering the issue of payment of salaries and the continuation of contractual employment.

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 not to be terminated without leave of the Court, solely based on their contractual employment. The Court noted that the State of Maharashtra, through the Joint Director of Health Services, had issued a communication dated January 24, 2023, acknowledging the issue of unpaid salaries and directing Zilla Parishads to submit details of arrears. The Court expected the Directorate of Health Services to initiate steps for payment of salaries from March 2023. The Court also directed that the arrears of payments should be assessed from the dates of filing of the writ petitions and paid in installments if not in a lump sum. The Court clarified that the Principal Employer (Zilla Parishad or Contractor) would adjust these payments against the bills of the Contractors. The Court also allowed contractual employees to raise industrial disputes if terminated or disengaged, referencing relevant Supreme Court judgments. The Court held that the State Government could frame a scheme, if desired, in light of the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v/s Umadevi, and that the conclusions in Dhiraj Sudhakarrao Wankhede would not impede this. The Court also directed that contractual employees shall not be replaced by new contractual employees, with exceptions for misconduct or other valid reasons. Preference was to be given to previously engaged contractual drivers if replacements were necessary. The Court further directed the Principal Employer to directly make payments to the contractual ambulance drivers via bank transactions to avoid allegations of sham contracts.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioners, engaged as contractual ambulance drivers, are entitled to continued employment and payment of salaries, considering their prolonged periods of non-payment and the termination of contracts with the deploying agencies? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued for their right to continued employment and payment of salaries, highlighting the substantial arrears and the State's communication acknowledging the issue. They relied on principles of natural justice and relevant Supreme Court judgments concerning contractual employment and payment of wages. Revenue/State's arguments: The State, through its communication, acknowledged the issue of unpaid salaries and indicated a willingness to address it by directing Zilla Parishads to provide details for direct payment. The State also referred to the possibility of framing a scheme under the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v/s Umadevi, and the implications of the Dhiraj Sudhakarrao Wankhede judgment.