Ramesh Bapurav Shinde And Others vs. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

Facts

Multiple writ petitions were filed by contractual ambulance drivers challenging their disengagement and non-payment of salaries. The petitioners were engaged through contractors by various Zilla Parishads. The State of Maharashtra, through the Joint Director of Health Services, had issued communications regarding the payment of salaries and the inclusion of GST. The petitioners had not been paid salaries for periods ranging between 12 to 15 months. The Zilla Parishads were called upon to provide details of salaries payable, including GST, and the quantum of funds required for monthly payments. The Court was considering the issue of direct payment of salaries to these drivers and the implications for their contractual employment.

Held

The Court directed that the minimum pay scale at the lowest grade applicable to regular employees holding the same ambulance driver post shall be paid to the petitioners until further orders. Their services were also protected from termination without leave of the Court, specifically concerning their contractual employment. The Court further directed that the concerned Zilla Parishads would intimate the Joint Director of Health Services, Mumbai, about the quantum of unpaid salaries, and the chart annexed to a previous communication dated 24.01.2023 would be filled and submitted within 10 days. The Directorate of Health Services was expected to initiate immediate steps to ensure monthly salaries are paid from March 2023. The Court also directed that the Principal Employer (Zilla Parishad or Contractor) would have to make the assessment of arrears from the dates of filing of the writ petitions and make payments, if not in lump sum, then in twelve equated monthly installments. The Court also held that the Principal Employer should directly make payments to the contractual ambulance drivers via bank transactions, which would not be a ground for alleging a sham contract or establishing an employer-employee relationship with the Zilla Parishad or Principal Employer. The Court also noted that contractual employees shall not be replaced by new contractual employees, with exceptions for misconduct, misdemeanor, or death, and that preference may be given to previously engaged contractual drivers if replacements are necessary. The Court also clarified that its conclusions in Dhiraj Sudhakarrao Wankhede would not prevent the State Government from framing a scheme under the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v/s Umadevi.

Key Issues

1. Whether the contractual ambulance drivers are entitled to receive their minimum salaries as per the pay scale of regular employees holding the same post until further orders? 2. Whether the services of the petitioners can be terminated without leave of the Court in relation to their contractual employment? 3. Whether the Zilla Parishads should directly pay the salaries of these contractual ambulance drivers, and if so, how should these payments be adjusted against contractor bills and service charges? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that they were not being paid their salaries for extended periods and sought directions for payment 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 and Zilla Parishads were directed to provide details of salaries payable, including GST, and to initiate steps for payment. The judgment indicates that the State was involved in facilitating the payment process and addressing the issue of unpaid salaries.