Sayyed Akheel Sayyad Taleed 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 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, for these drivers. The core issue revolved around the non-payment of wages and the contractual employment status of these drivers. The petitions also involved contempt petitions related to previous orders and civil applications concerning the payment of salaries and the status of contractors.

Held

The Court directed that the contractual ambulance drivers shall be paid minimum pay scales at the lowest grade applicable to regular employees holding the same post, until further orders. Their services shall not be terminated without leave of the Court, solely in relation to their contractual employment. The Court noted that the Zilla Parishads would intimate the Joint Director of Health Services about the quantum of unpaid salaries. The Directorate of Health Services was expected to initiate steps to ensure monthly salaries are paid from March 2023. The Court directed that payments to these drivers should be made directly by the Principal Employer (Zilla Parishad or Contractor) via bank transactions to their salary accounts, to avoid allegations of sham contracts. The Court also clarified that if any contractual drivers were terminated or disengaged, they were at liberty to raise an industrial dispute. The Court also stated that the State Government could frame a scheme in view of the Supreme Court's judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v/s Umadevi, if desired. The Court also directed that the Principal Employer could adjust these direct payments against the bills of the contractors.

Key Issues

1. Whether the contractual ambulance drivers, engaged through contractors by Zilla Parishads, are entitled to receive their salaries directly from the Principal Employer (Zilla Parishad) in light of non-payment by contractors? (Section 129 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samities Act, 1961, and principles of labour law). 2. Whether the services of these contractual employees can be terminated without leave of the Court? (Related to contractual employment and potential industrial disputes). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that they have not been paid their salaries for extended periods, and the contractors have failed to fulfill their obligations. They sought direct payment from the Zilla Parishads and continuation of their services. They relied on various Supreme Court judgments concerning contractual employment and payment of wages. Revenue/State's arguments: The State acknowledged the issue of unpaid salaries and had issued communications to Zilla Parishads to address it. The State provided a format for Zilla Parishads to report the quantum of funds required for salary payments, including GST. The State's stance was to facilitate the payment process and ensure drivers receive their dues.