Gajanan Bajirao Pavade And Others vs. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary 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 the Joint Director of Health Services, had issued communications regarding the payment of salaries, including GST, and the need for Zilla Parishads to provide details of funds required. The Zilla Parishads were called upon to submit a chart detailing unpaid salaries. The petitions also involved challenges to the termination of contractual employment and the non-payment of bills by contractors.

Held

The Court directed that the contractual ambulance drivers shall be paid the minimum pay scale at the lowest grade of regular employees holding the same post until further orders. Their services were not to be terminated without leave of the Court, solely concerning their contractual employment. The Court directed the concerned Zilla Parishads to intimate the Joint Director of Health Services, Mumbai, about the quantum of unpaid salaries within 10 days, using a specified chart. The Directorate of Health Services was expected to initiate steps to ensure monthly salaries are paid from March 2023. The Court also directed that the Principal Employer (Zilla Parishad or Contractor) would be responsible for assessing and paying arrears, potentially in installments. The Court clarified that direct payment by the Principal Employer would not establish an employer-employee relationship for the purpose of alleging a sham contract. The judgment also noted that the conclusions in Dhiraj Sudhakarrao Wankhede would not prevent the State from framing a scheme under the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v/s Umadevi, if desired. It was also held that the Principal Employer could adjust these direct payments against the bills of the contractors.

Key Issues

1. Whether the contractual ambulance drivers are entitled to receive their salaries directly from the Principal Employer (Zilla Parishad) in light of non-payment by contractors, and what is the appropriate mechanism for such payment, considering the provisions related to contractual employment and potential employer-employee relationships under the GST regime? Petitioner's argument: The petitioners argued for direct payment of salaries by the Principal Employer due to non-payment by contractors, seeking a direction for payment of minimum pay scales and protection against termination. They relied on principles of natural justice and relevant Supreme Court judgments concerning contractual employment. Revenue/State's argument: The State and Zilla Parishads were expected to provide details of funds required and were directed to make payments. The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the revenue/state regarding the GST implications or the specific legal challenges to the payment mechanism, beyond their role in facilitating the payments.