Ravikiran Rangrao Suryavanshi And ORS v. The State Of Maharashtra Throu. Its Sec. Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14017 OF 2024 Ravikiran Rangrao Suryavanshi & Ors.

...Petitioners

Versus

The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Its Sec. Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare And Ors.

...Respondents

Mr. Tanaji Mahtugade, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Abhijeet Naik, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4/State. Mr. Sidheshwar Biradar, Advocate for Respondent No.5. CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.

by SUNNY ANKUSHRAO THOTE Date:

2024.10.23 21:00:23 +0530 SUNNY ANKUSHRAO THOTE DATE :- 21st OCTOBER, 2024 PER COURT :- 1.

All these Petitioners are contractual ambulance drivers. 2.

The learned Advocates for the respective sides agree that these Petitioners would be covered by the Order passed by this Court at the Aurangabad Bench, dated 30th August, 2024, in Writ Petition No. 1913 of 2024 (Navnath Bhaskar Dive and Anr. V. State of Maharashtra and Ors.) and a large group of Petitions. Those

Petitions were transferred to the Aurangabad Bench under the order of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, thereby clubbing the matters that were filed at the Principal Seat, Nagpur Bench and the Aurangabad Bench.

3.

In view of above and in the light of the conclusions and the directions set out in Navnath Bhaskar Dive (supra), this Writ Petition is partly allowed. The directions set out in paragraph 21 in Navnath Bhaskar Dive (supra), would be applicable to the services of this Petitioners. For ready reference, the said directions are reproduced herein under :- "21.

In view of the above, all these Writ Petitions are partly allowed, with following directions:- (a) The service conditions applicable to these Petitioners would be maintained as long as the scheme lasts.

(b) The contractual employees shall not be replaced by new contractual employees, either by the Contractor or by the Principal employer. These directions of not to be replaced with another contractual employee, would be restricted only to the contractual working of such Drivers, and in the event of any misconduct/misdemeanor/death of the employee or any such reasons, the Principal Employer/the Contractor would be at liberty to seek services of new Ambulance Drivers. If there are certain contractual Ambulance Drivers, who have earlier worked, and are not engaged as on date, preference may be granted to them, if any replacement is to be effected.

(c) Considering the grave and serious complaints about Contractors not paying the wages to these Petitioners on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Dhondiba Meher (supra), we deem it appropriate to direct the Principal Employer to directly make the payments of these contractual Ambulance Drivers, vide Bank transactions in their salary Bank Accounts. Such payment shall not be a ground for alleging that the contract is sham and bogus and no employer/employee relationship would be deemed to be established between such Ambulance Drivers vis-avis the Zilla Parishad or the Principal Employer.

(d) If any of the contractual Ambulance Drivers have been terminated or disengaged, they are at liberty to raise an industrial dispute under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and carry a reference to the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, as the case may be, in the light of the law laid down in Vividh Kamgar Sabha vs. Kalyani Steels Ltd. And Anr., [2001 (2) SCC 381]; Cipla Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union and Ors., [2001 (3) SCC 101] and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (5 Judges Bench) in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and Others, dated 30/08/2001, reported in [AIR 2001 SC 3527].

(e) The conclusions of this Court in Dhiraj Sudhakarrao Wankhede (supra), which have been sustained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, would not come in way of the State Government in framing a scheme in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v/s Umadevi (supra), if so desired by the State Government.

(f) Since we have directed the Zilla Parishads or the State Government or the Rugna Kalyan Samiti (Medical Board), as the case may be, to directly pay the salaries to these contractual employees, it would be within the domain of the Principal Employer, to adjust these

amounts as against the bills of the Contractors and also by adjusting the service charges."

(M.M. SATHAYE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)