Tejas Arunrao Ingalkar And Ors vs. The State Of Maharashtra 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 24.01.2023, requesting Zilla Parishads to submit details of salaries payable, including GST, and the quantum of funds required for monthly payments. The Zilla Parishads were asked to fill a specific format/chart. The Court is dealing with multiple writ petitions filed by these drivers challenging the non-payment of their salaries and seeking directions for payment. The judgment also mentions that contractors had deployed these petitioners and their contracts have been terminated.

Held

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 shall not be terminated without leave of the Court, solely in relation to their contractual employment. The concerned Zilla Parishads are to intimate the Joint Director of Health Services, Mumbai, regarding the quantum of unpaid salaries within 10 days, using the chart annexed to the communication dated 24.01.2023. The Directorate of Health Services is expected to initiate immediate steps to ensure monthly salaries are paid from March 2023. The Court also directed that the Agency (Zilla Parishad or Contractor) must assess arrears from the filing dates of the writ petitions and make payments, if not in lump sum, then in twelve equated monthly installments. The service conditions applicable to the petitioners will be maintained as long as the scheme lasts. Contractual employees shall not be replaced by new contractual employees, except in cases of misconduct, misdemeanor, death, or other valid reasons, with preference to previously engaged drivers if replacement is necessary. The Principal Employer (Zilla Parishad) is directed to make payments directly to the drivers via bank transactions to avoid allegations of sham contracts. Petitioners terminated or disengaged are at liberty to raise industrial disputes. The Court noted that its conclusions in Dhiraj Sudhakarrao Wankhede would not prevent the State from framing a scheme under Umadevi. Finally, the Principal Employer can adjust these direct payments against contractor bills and service charges.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Zilla Parishads, as Principal Employers, are obligated to directly pay the salaries of the contractual ambulance drivers, considering the non-payment by contractors? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of employer responsibility and contractual obligations). 2. What is the appropriate mechanism and timeline for disbursing the arrears of salaries to the contractual ambulance drivers? (Question of law and fact, concerning procedural directions for payment). Petitioner's arguments (implied by the relief sought and the Court's observations): The petitioners are seeking direct payment of their salaries, arguing that the contractors have failed to do so, and they are suffering due to prolonged non-payment. They likely contend that the Zilla Parishads, as the ultimate beneficiaries of their services, should ensure their wages are paid. Revenue/State's arguments (implied by the Court's directions and communications): The State, through its communications, appears to be facilitating a process for the Zilla Parishads to assess and pay the salaries. The State's stance is likely to ensure that the drivers are paid, but the mechanism involves the Zilla Parishads and the contractors. The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the State or Zilla Parishads regarding their legal obligations or defenses.