Sudhakar Chaburao Kamble And Others vs. State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

Facts

The petitioners, ambulance drivers engaged on a contractual basis, approached the Bombay High Court seeking payment of their salaries, which had allegedly not been paid for periods ranging from 12 to 15 months. The State of Maharashtra, through the Directorate of Health Services, issued a communication dated January 24, 2023, to District Health Officers of Zilla Parishads, requesting details of salaries payable to contractual drivers and specifying a format that included GST. The Zilla Parishads were asked to indicate the funds required for monthly salaries. The Court was dealing with multiple writ petitions concerning these contractual drivers.

Held

The Court directed that the Petitioners be paid salaries at par with the minimum pay scale of regular employees holding the same post until further orders. It was also directed that their services shall not be terminated without the leave of the Court, solely in relation to their contractual employment. The Court acknowledged the non-payment of salaries for extended periods and, considering the State's communication dated January 24, 2023, directed the Zilla Parishads to submit details of unpaid salaries to the Joint Director of Health Services 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 held that the Principal Employer (Zilla Parishad or Contractor) would have to assess arrears and make payments, either lump-sum or in installments. The Court further directed that contractual employees shall not be replaced by new contractual employees, except in cases of misconduct, misdemeanor, death, or other valid reasons, and that the Principal Employer should directly make payments to the drivers via bank transactions. The Court clarified that these directions would not prevent the State from framing a scheme in accordance with the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v/s Umadevi, and that the Principal Employer could adjust these direct payments against contractor bills. The Court also noted that any terminated or disengaged drivers could raise an industrial dispute.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioners, as contractual ambulance drivers, are entitled to receive their salaries directly from the Principal Employer (Zilla Parishad) or the State Government, especially in light of the contractors' alleged non-payment. The Petitioners argued that due to non-payment by contractors, they should be paid directly by the principal employer to ensure their livelihood. They relied on principles of natural justice and the need to prevent exploitation. The Revenue/State contended that the contractual relationship was between the drivers and the contractors, and the State's obligation was limited to payments to the contractors. However, the State's communication dated January 24, 2023, indicated a willingness to facilitate direct payment. 2. Whether the services of these contractual ambulance drivers can be terminated without the leave of the Court. The Petitioners argued for continuity of service until further orders, given the pending salary disputes. The Revenue/State did not appear to have made specific arguments on this point, but the Court addressed it in its directions.