Sayyed Anis Sayyed Inus vs. The State Of Maharashtra 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 quantum of funds required. The Zilla Parishads were directed to provide details of salaries payable to these drivers. The core issue revolved around the non-payment of wages and the termination of contractual employment without proper recourse.

Held

The Court directed that the contractual ambulance drivers shall be paid salaries at par with the minimum pay scale of regular employees holding the same post until further orders. Their services were protected from termination without leave of the Court, except in cases of misconduct, misdemeanor, death, or similar valid reasons. The Court mandated that the Zilla Parishads, as the Principal Employers, shall directly make payments of salaries to these drivers through bank transfers, adjusting these amounts against contractor bills and service charges. This direct payment would not establish an employer-employee relationship between the drivers and the Zilla Parishad. The Court also clarified that any contractual ambulance drivers who were terminated or disengaged are at liberty to raise an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and referred to relevant Supreme Court judgments on the matter. The Court also noted that the State Government could frame a scheme in line with the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v/s Umadevi (supra).

Key Issues

1. Whether the contractual ambulance drivers are entitled to receive their salaries directly from the Principal Employer (Zilla Parishad) in light of prolonged non-payment by contractors, and what is the appropriate mechanism for such payment? - Petitioners argued for direct payment by the Principal Employer to ensure they receive their due wages, citing the hardship caused by non-payment and the principle of ensuring workers are paid. - The Revenue/State contended that the contractual framework existed and that the Zilla Parishads were responsible for ensuring payments, potentially through adjustments with contractors. They also indicated a need for clarity on the quantum of funds required. 2. Whether the services of these contractual ambulance drivers can be terminated without leave of the Court, and if so, under what circumstances? - Petitioners sought protection against arbitrary termination of their contractual employment, especially given the salary arrears. - The Revenue/State likely argued for the adherence to contractual terms and the employer's right to terminate based on contractual provisions, subject to legal recourse for the employees.