Sudhakar Mansubrao Bodkhe vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

Facts

Multiple writ petitions were filed by contractual ambulance drivers engaged through contractors by various Zilla Parishads in Maharashtra. The petitioners alleged non-payment of salaries for periods ranging from 12 to 15 months. The State of Maharashtra, through the Joint Director of Health Services, had issued a communication on January 24, 2023, outlining a format for Zilla Parishads to submit details of salaries payable, including GST. The Zilla Parishads were asked to state the quantum of funds required for monthly salaries. The petitions challenged the termination of their contracts and the non-payment of dues, seeking directions for regular payment and regularization of services.

Held

The Court directed that the minimum pay scale at the lowest grade applicable to regular employees holding the same post shall 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 mandated that Zilla Parishads must intimate the Joint Director of Health Services, Mumbai, regarding the quantum of unpaid salaries within 10 days, filling a specified chart. 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 Principal Employer (Zilla Parishad or Contractor) must assess and make payments for arrears from the filing dates of the writ petitions, either in lump sum or in twelve equated monthly installments. The Court held that the service conditions applicable to these petitioners would be maintained as long as the scheme lasts and contractual employees shall not be replaced by new contractual employees, with exceptions for misconduct or other valid reasons. The Court directed the Principal Employer to directly make payments to the contractual ambulance drivers via bank transactions to prevent non-payment of wages, clarifying this would not establish an employer-employee relationship for regularization purposes. It was also held that any terminated or disengaged drivers are at liberty to raise an industrial dispute. The Court noted that its conclusions in Dhiraj Sudhakarrao Wankhede would not prevent the State Government from framing a scheme under Umadevi. Finally, the Court directed that the amounts paid directly to drivers by the Principal Employer could be adjusted against the bills of the Contractors.

Key Issues

1. Whether the contractual ambulance drivers are entitled to receive their salaries directly from the Principal Employer (Zilla Parishad) rather than through the contractors, particularly in light of non-payment for extended periods. 2. Whether the services of these contractual drivers should be continued until further orders, and if their services can be terminated without leave of the Court. 3. Whether the State Government can frame a scheme for regularization of services in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v/s Umadevi, despite previous adverse findings in Dhiraj Sudhakarrao Wankhede. Petitioner's arguments likely centered on the principle of "equal pay for equal work" and the obligation of the employer to ensure timely payment of wages, especially for essential services like ambulance drivers. They would have argued that the non-payment amounts to a breach of contract and exploitation. The State's arguments, as indicated by the court's directions, would have focused on the contractual nature of the employment and the process for ensuring payments, potentially referencing existing schemes and financial procedures.