Vikky Rameshrao Chinchekar And Others vs. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

Facts

The petitioners, contractual ambulance drivers engaged through contractors by Zilla Parishads, approached the High Court seeking payment of their salaries, which had been withheld for periods ranging from 12 to 15 months. The Zilla Parishads, as principal employers, were responsible for engaging these drivers. The State of Maharashtra, through the Joint Director of Health Services, had issued communications regarding the payment of salaries and the inclusion of GST. The petitioners' contracts were terminated, leading to the dispute over unpaid wages. Several Writ Petitions and Contempt Petitions were filed concerning these issues.

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, solely based on their contractual employment. The Court mandated that the concerned Zilla Parishads must intimate the Joint Director of Health Services about the quantum of unpaid salaries within 10 days, using the format provided in a previous communication. The Directorate of Health Services was expected to initiate steps to ensure monthly salaries are paid from March 2023. The Court also directed that contractors' future bills would not be cleared without court leave. The Zilla Parishads or contractors were to assess arrears from the filing dates of the writ petitions and make payments, if not lump-sum, then in twelve equated monthly installments. The Court also directed that the Principal Employer (Zilla Parishad) should directly make payments to the contractual ambulance drivers via bank transfers, to avoid allegations of sham contracts. The Court clarified that its directions would not prevent the State Government from framing a scheme under the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v/s Umadevi (supra).

Key Issues

1. Whether the Zilla Parishads, as principal employers, are obligated to directly pay the salaries of contractual ambulance drivers, especially when contractors have failed to do so, and what is the mechanism for such payment, considering the GST implications? (Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017, and relevant state GST provisions). 2. Whether the contractual employees are entitled to be paid at least the minimum pay scale of regular employees holding similar posts until further orders, and whether their services can be terminated without leave of the court? 3. What is the extent of the Zilla Parishads' liability to pay arrears of salaries, and in what manner should these payments be made? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued for direct payment of salaries by the principal employer (Zilla Parishad) to ensure they receive their dues, citing the failure of contractors. They also sought protection against termination and payment at par with regular employees. They relied on various Supreme Court judgments concerning contractual employment and payment of wages. Revenue's arguments: The State of Maharashtra, through its officials, was involved in facilitating the payment process and had issued communications regarding salary structures and GST. The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the revenue side regarding the core dispute over direct payment or pay scales, but rather their involvement in the administrative and financial aspects.