Santosh Ramchandra Shinde And Others vs. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

Facts

This judgment consolidates multiple writ petitions filed by contractual ambulance drivers and others against the State of Maharashtra and its officials. The petitioners, engaged through contractors, claim non-payment of salaries for periods ranging from 12 to 15 months. The State, through communications from the Joint Director of Health Services, has acknowledged the issue and requested Zilla Parishads to provide details of unpaid salaries and required funds. The Zilla Parishads are also directed to submit a specific chart detailing these amounts. The core of the dispute revolves around the payment of salaries to these contractual employees, with the State indicating a need for direct payment by Zilla Parishads to ensure timely disbursement.

Held

The Court directed that the contractual ambulance drivers (petitioners) shall be paid salaries at the minimum pay scale of the lowest grade in the regular pay scale extended to regular employees holding the same post, until further orders. Their services were also protected from termination without leave of the Court, solely in relation to their contractual employment. The Court further directed the concerned Zilla Parishads to intimate the Joint Director of Health Services, Mumbai, regarding the quantum of unpaid salaries within 10 days, using a specified chart. The Directorate of Health Services was expected to initiate immediate steps to ensure monthly salaries are paid from March 2023. The Court also held 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 clarified that direct payment by the Principal Employer 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 if any contractual drivers were terminated, they could raise an industrial dispute. The Court also stated 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, if desired.

Key Issues

1. Whether the contractual ambulance drivers (petitioners) are entitled to receive their salaries directly from the Principal Employer (Zilla Parishad) or the State Government, given the non-payment by contractors? (Implicitly related to the employer-employee relationship and payment mechanisms under contract labor). 2. Whether the services of the contractual ambulance drivers should be continued and their salaries paid at the minimum pay scale of regular employees holding similar posts until further orders? (Related to interim relief and terms of employment). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued for the direct payment of their salaries by the Zilla Parishads or the State, citing non-payment by contractors. They also sought continuation of their services and payment at par with regular employees. The petitioners relied on various Supreme Court judgments concerning contractual employment and wage payments. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State acknowledged the issue of non-payment and initiated steps to address it by calling for details from Zilla Parishads. The State's stance, as reflected in the communications, suggests a willingness to facilitate direct payment mechanisms to resolve the salary arrears.