Bombay High Court
MANOJ ANKUSH SHINDE AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The writ petitions are partly allowed, directing maintenance of service conditions, prohibition of replacement except for specified reasons, direct payment of wages by the principal employer, and permitting industrial dispute remedies for terminated drivers.
Summary
The petitioners, contractual ambulance drivers employed by contractors under the Zilla Parishad, challenged the replacement of their service conditions and non‑payment of wages. The High Court referred to its earlier order in Writ Petition No. 1913 of 2024, affirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7288 of 2025, and partially allowed the writs. It directed that the existing service conditions remain for the duration of the scheme, prohibited replacement of contractual drivers except in cases of misconduct, death or similar reasons, and ordered the principal employer to pay salaries directly to the drivers’ bank accounts. The Court clarified that such payment does not create an employer‑employee relationship with the Zilla Parishad, and allowed terminated drivers to raise industrial disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It also noted that the State may frame a new scheme consistent with Supreme Court precedents.
Issues considered
- The applicability of existing service conditions to contractual ambulance drivers under the scheme
- Whether contractual drivers can be replaced by new contractual employees
- The liability for payment of wages and the nature of the employer‑employee relationship
- The right of terminated drivers to raise industrial disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
- The scope for the State Government to frame a new scheme in light of Supreme Court judgments
Legislation cited
Subjects
- contractual employees
- ambulance drivers
- wage payment
- employer-employee relationship
- industrial dispute
- service conditions
- replacement of staff
- government scheme
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:43036-DB
{1} 38-wp-12197-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
38 WRIT PETITION NO. 12197 OF 2026
Vikas Onkar Bagul
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Mr. Pramod A. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. N.D. Batule, AGP for State
Mr. V.V. Gujar, Advocate for Respondents No. 4 and 5
57 WRIT PETITION NO. 12217 OF 2026
Manoj Ankush Shinde And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
Mr. Pramod A. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. S.R. Wakle, AGP for State
Mr. U.B. Bondar, Advocate for Respondents No. 3 and 4
.......
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :
1. Indisputably, the case of the petitioners is covered by the order
passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1913 of 2024 and connected
matters on 30.08.2024. Said order is confirmed by the Apex Court in
Civil Appeal No. 7288 of 2025 by order dated 19.08.2026.
2. In the light of above, for the reasons stated in the order passed
in Writ Petition No. 1913 of 2024, writ petitions are partly allowed with
{2} 38-wp-12197-2026
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-a-vis 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.
{3} 38-wp-12197-2026
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.
(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)
Bhagyawant Punde
Checking your session…