Santosh Sajjan Ghule vs. The State Of Maharashtra 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 format/chart and submit it to the Joint Director. The Court was considering multiple writ petitions filed by these drivers seeking payment of their dues and continuation of their services. The judgment also references a communication from the Joint Director of Health Services dated January 24, 2023, and a specific format/chart for salary details including GST.

Held

The Court directed that the minimum pay scale at the lowest grade of regular employees holding the same post should 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 noted that the Zilla Parishads would intimate the Joint Director of Health Services regarding the quantum of unpaid salaries, and the provided chart, including GST, would be filled and submitted within ten days. The Directorate of Health Services was expected to initiate steps to ensure monthly salaries are paid from March 2023. The Court also directed that the Zilla Parishads or contractors would assess arrears from the dates of filing the writ petitions and make payments, either lump-sum or in installments. The Court held that the principal employer should directly make payments to the contractual ambulance drivers via bank transactions to address grave complaints about contractors not paying wages. This direct payment would not establish an employer-employee relationship between the drivers and the Zilla Parishad. The Court also clarified that if any contractual drivers were terminated, they could raise an industrial dispute. The Court's previous conclusions in Dhiraj Sudhakarrao Wankhede would not prevent the State from framing a scheme under the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v/s Umadevi. Finally, the Court directed that the Zilla Parishads or State Government would adjust these direct salary payments against the contractors' bills and service charges.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Zilla Parishads, as principal employers, are obligated to directly pay the salaries of contractual ambulance drivers, considering the non-payment by contractors? (Issue of contractual employment and employer responsibility). 2. Whether the contractual employees' services should be protected from termination without leave of the Court, and if their service conditions should be maintained as long as the scheme lasts? (Issue of service protection and continuity). Petitioner's arguments (implied from the relief sought and the Court's observations): The petitioners argued that they have not been paid their salaries for extended periods, and the contractors have failed to fulfill their obligations. They sought direct payment from the principal employer (Zilla Parishads) and protection against arbitrary termination. They relied on principles of natural justice and established labor jurisprudence regarding payment of wages to contractual employees. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the Revenue or State regarding the GST aspect. However, the State's communication indicates a process for assessing salary requirements, which implicitly includes GST. The State's role appears to be facilitating the payment process and ensuring compliance.