Rajesh Dhondiram Kamble vs. The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary And Others

Facts

The petitioners are contractual ambulance drivers engaged through contractors by Zilla Parishads in Maharashtra. 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 January 24, 2023, requesting Zilla Parishads to provide details of salaries payable, including GST, and the quantum of funds required for monthly payments. The Zilla Parishads were asked to fill a specific chart and submit it to the Joint Director. The High Court was hearing multiple writ petitions filed by these drivers challenging the non-payment of their salaries and seeking directions for payment. The Court also considered communications from the Directorate of Health Services regarding the payment of salaries.

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, solely in relation to their contractual employment. The Court noted that the petitioners had not been paid salaries for 12 to 15 months. It directed the concerned Zilla Parishads to intimate the Joint Director of Health Services, Mumbai, about the quantum of unpaid salaries within 10 days, using the chart annexed to the communication dated January 24, 2023. 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 Zilla Parishad or Contractor would have to make an 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 further directed that the Principal Employer (Zilla Parishad) 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. If terminated or disengaged, drivers were at liberty to raise an industrial dispute. The Court also clarified that its directions would not impede the State Government from framing a scheme in view of the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v/s Umadevi (supra). Finally, it was held that the Principal Employer could adjust these direct payments against the bills of the Contractors and service charges.

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? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that due to the non-payment of salaries by the contractors, they are facing severe financial hardship and are entitled to receive their wages directly from the Zilla Parishads, who are the ultimate beneficiaries of their services. They relied on principles of natural justice and equity. Revenue/State's contention: The State, through its communications, acknowledged the issue and sought to facilitate a process for payment. The Zilla Parishads were directed to provide details for assessing the quantum of unpaid salaries and to facilitate direct payment. The State's stance was to resolve the payment issue for the drivers.