Bajirao Shankar Gite vs. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

Facts

This judgment consolidates multiple writ petitions filed by contractual ambulance drivers and others against the State of Maharashtra and its various departments, including Zilla Parishads. The petitioners, engaged through contractors, were allegedly not receiving their salaries for extended periods, ranging from 12 to 15 months. The core issue revolved around the non-payment of wages and the termination of their services. The State, through communications from the Joint Director of Health Services, acknowledged the issue and requested details from Zilla Parishads regarding unpaid salaries and the funds required for monthly payments. The Court was tasked with addressing the plight of these contractual employees who had not been paid for a significant duration.

Held

The Court directed that the petitioners be paid minimum wages at the lowest grade of the regular pay scale applicable to regular employees holding the same post, until further orders. It was also held that their services should not be terminated without the leave of the Court, solely based on their contractual employment status. The Court further directed the concerned Zilla Parishads to intimate the Joint Director of Health Services about the quantum of unpaid salaries within 10 days and to fill in a specific chart annexed to a communication dated 24.01.2023. 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 arrears of payments from the dates of filing the writ petitions should be assessed and paid, either in lump sum or in twelve equated monthly installments. The Court explicitly stated that the service conditions applicable to the petitioners would be maintained as long as the scheme lasts and that contractual employees shall not be replaced by new contractual employees, with exceptions for misconduct or other valid reasons. The Court also directed the Principal Employer to directly make payments to the contractual ambulance drivers via bank transactions, which would not be a ground for alleging a sham contract. The judgment also clarified that if any contractual drivers were terminated, they were 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 the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v/s Umadevi.

Key Issues

1. Whether the contractual ambulance drivers are entitled to receive minimum wages at par with regular employees holding the same post, pending further orders on their writ petitions? 2. Whether the services of the petitioners should be terminated without leave of the Court, considering their contractual employment status? 3. Whether the Zilla Parishads, as principal employers, are obligated to directly pay the salaries of the contractual ambulance drivers, and how should arrears be handled? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued for the payment of minimum wages, protection against arbitrary termination, and direct payment of salaries by the principal employer to ensure they receive their dues. They relied on various Supreme Court judgments concerning contractual employment and wage payments. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State, through its communications, indicated a willingness to address the salary payment issue and sought details from Zilla Parishads. The judgment does not explicitly record detailed arguments from the State beyond their participation in the process of addressing the salary payments.