Yogesh Vasantrao Raut And Ors vs. The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary And Ors

Facts

The petitioners are contractual ambulance drivers engaged through contractors by Zilla Parishads. They have not been paid salaries for periods ranging from 12 to 15 months. The State of Maharashtra, through the Joint Director of Health Services, issued a communication on January 24, 2023, requesting Zilla Parishads to submit details of salaries payable, including GST, and the quantum of funds required for monthly payments. The Zilla Parishads were called upon to state the funds needed to pay these drivers directly. The Court is considering multiple writ petitions filed by these drivers challenging the non-payment of their salaries and seeking regularization or direct payment. The judgment also addresses the issue of contractors' bills and service charges.

Held

The Court held that the contractual ambulance drivers are entitled to receive their salaries directly from the Principal Employer (Zilla Parishad) or the State Government, especially given the prolonged non-payment by contractors. The Court directed that the minimum pay scale at the lowest grade of regular employees holding the same post shall be paid to the petitioners until further orders. Their services are protected from termination without leave of the Court, solely based on their contractual employment. The Court also directed that the concerned Zilla Parishads shall intimate the Joint Director of Health Services, Mumbai, regarding the quantum of unpaid salaries, filling in a specific chart annexed to the communication dated January 24, 2023, within ten days. The Directorate of Health Services is expected to initiate immediate steps to ensure monthly salaries are paid from March 2023. Payments made directly to drivers by the Principal Employer will not be a ground for alleging a sham contract or establishing an employer-employee relationship with the Zilla Parishad. The Court also directed that any arrears of payments from the dates of filing of the writ petitions should be assessed and paid, if not in lump sum, then in twelve equated monthly installments. The Court also clarified that the Principal Employer can adjust these direct payments against the bills of the contractors and service charges. The Court also noted that if any contractual drivers were terminated or disengaged, they are at liberty to raise an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court also clarified that its conclusions in Dhiraj Sudhakarrao Wankhede would not prevent the State Government from framing a scheme in view of the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v/s Umadevi, if desired.

Key Issues

1. Whether the contractual ambulance drivers are entitled to receive their salaries directly from the Principal Employer (Zilla Parishad) or the State Government, considering the non-payment by contractors? 2. Whether the services of these contractual drivers should be protected from termination without leave of the Court, given the prolonged non-payment of salaries? 3. To what extent can the Court direct the Principal Employer to make payments to the contractual drivers, and how should these payments be adjusted against contractor bills and service charges? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that they have not been paid for extended periods, necessitating direct intervention by the authorities to ensure payment of their salaries. They sought protection against arbitrary termination and regularization of their services. They relied on various Supreme Court judgments concerning contractual employment and payment of wages. Revenue/State's arguments: The State and Zilla Parishads acknowledged the issue of non-payment and provided a communication outlining a process for Zilla Parishads to submit details for direct payment. They indicated their willingness to ensure payment, subject to procedural requirements and fund allocation. They also highlighted the contractual nature of the employment and the role of contractors in the deployment and payment of drivers.