Prakash Shankar Mahale And Others vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

Facts

A group of ambulance drivers, employed through contractors, filed multiple writ petitions before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. They alleged non-payment of salaries for periods ranging from 12 to 15 months. The State of Maharashtra, through the Directorate of Health Services, issued a communication on January 24, 2023, directing Zilla Parishads to submit details of salaries payable to these contractual drivers, including GST, and to indicate the funds required for monthly payments. The Court was dealing with numerous petitions concerning these drivers and their contractual employment. The core issue revolved around the non-payment of wages and the termination of their services.

Held

The Court directed that the Petitioners be paid salaries at par with the minimum pay scale of regular employees holding the same post until further orders. Their services were also protected from termination without the Court's leave, concerning their contractual employment. The Court noted that the Petitioners had not been paid for 12 to 15 months and, referencing the State's communication dated January 24, 2023, directed the concerned Zilla Parishads to intimate the Joint Director of Health Services, Mumbai, about the quantum of unpaid salaries within ten days. The Directorate of Health Services was expected to initiate steps to ensure monthly salary payments from March 2023. The Court also directed that arrears of payments be made, if not in lump sum, then in twelve equated monthly installments. The Court clarified that these directions would not prevent the State from framing a scheme under the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v/s Umadevi, and that payments made directly to drivers could be adjusted against contractors' bills. The Court also addressed the issue of contractual employees not being replaced by new ones, with exceptions for misconduct or other valid reasons, and suggested preference for previously engaged drivers if replacements were necessary.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioners, contractual ambulance drivers, are entitled to receive their salaries directly from the Principal Employer (Zilla Parishad or State) in light of non-payment by contractors and the State's communication dated January 24, 2023? (Question of law and fact) 2. What is the appropriate mechanism for ensuring the payment of arrears of salaries to these drivers? Arguments for the Petitioners: The petitioners argued that they had not been paid salaries for extended periods, necessitating direct intervention. They relied on the State's communication dated January 24, 2023, which indicated a willingness to address the salary payments. They sought a direction for direct payment of salaries and for their services not to be terminated without leave of the court. Arguments for the Revenue/State: The State, through its communication, acknowledged the issue and directed Zilla Parishads to provide details for salary payments. The judgment does not explicitly record separate arguments from the State beyond its communication and the subsequent directions issued by the Court.