Bombay High Court

RAJKUMAR MADHUKAR KUKALE 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 with new contractual drivers except for valid reasons, and direct payment of salaries by the principal employer.

Summary

The petitioners, who are contractual ambulance drivers employed under a Zilla Parishad scheme, challenged the non‑payment of wages and the practice of being replaced by new contractual workers. The High Court noted that the matters were covered by its earlier order in Writ Petition No.1913 of 2024, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7288 of 2025. The Court partially allowed the writ petitions, directing that the existing service conditions remain in force, that contractors cannot replace the drivers with new contractual staff except in cases of misconduct or death, and that the principal employer must pay salaries directly into the drivers’ bank accounts. It further held that such direct payment does not create an employer‑employee relationship and that terminated drivers may pursue industrial disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The directions also clarified that the State may frame a scheme consistent with Supreme Court precedents and that salary payments may be adjusted against contractors’ bills.

Issues considered

Whether contractual ambulance drivers are entitled to continued service conditions and protection from replacement by new contractual employees.
Whether the principal employer must make direct salary payments to the drivers and the legal effect of such payments.
Whether terminated drivers can raise industrial disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Legislation cited

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Subjects

contractual employment
ambulance drivers
wage payment
industrial dispute
replacement of contractual workers
service conditions
direct salary payment
Zilla Parishad scheme

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:44317-DB


                                                   *1*


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              942 WRIT PETITION NO.12516 OF 2026

                           Rajkumar Madhukar Kukale And Another
                                           VERSUS
                  The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
                                              …..
                    Shri. Pramod A. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioners
                      Shri. V. M. Kagne, AGP for the Respondent – State.
                                              …..
                                            AND

                                 WRIT PETITION NO.1681 OF 2024

                               Nilesh Nanabhau Bhadane and Another
                                               VERSUS
                        The Union of India Through Its Secretary and Others
                                                 ….
                        Shri. Pramod A. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioners
                         Shri. N. D. Batule, AGP for the Respondent – State.
                          Shri. N. N. Desale, Advocate for Respondent No.5
                                                  ….
                                                AND

                                WRIT PETITION NO.11798 OF 2024

                       Shri. Amanulla Kha Sher Kha Pathan and Others
                                             Versus
                The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Deptt. Of Public
                                   Health, Mumbai and Others
                                               ….
                     Shri. Pramod A. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioners
                      Shri. S. R. Wakale, AGP for the Respondent – State.
                                               ….

                                     CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI &
                                             ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
                                     DATE : 24th SEPTEMBER 2026
                                      *2*


P. C. :-

1.         Writ Petition Nos.1681 of 2024 and 11798 of 2024 are not

on board. Upon mentioning, the same are taken on board.



2.         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 Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7288 of 2025 by

order dated 19.08.2026.



3.         In the light of above and for the reasons stated in the

order passed in Writ Petition No.1913 of 2024, 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.
                                 *3*


(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 the Chief
Executive Officer Zilla Parishad, Solapur versus Ashok Dhondiba
Meher & Ors. in SLP(C) No. 8395/ 2021 decided on 23.03.2022,
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. 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 and others Vs. the Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur and
Others (Writ Petition No. 2247/2014) decided on 20/11/2019,
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 and others Vs. Uma Devi (3)
and others, [(2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1], 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
                               *4*

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.)


GGP

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…