Full Judgment Text
2007:BHC-OS:8560-DB
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1323 OF 2007
Maharashtra Rajya Suraksha Rakshah )
& General Kamgar Union, a registered Trade )
Union having its office at 113, Gautam Udyog )
Bhavan, First Floor, LBS Marg, Bhandup, )
Mumbai-400 078 )..Petitioners
versus
1. Security Guards Board for Greater Bombay & )
nd
Thane District, having their head office on 2 )
floor, Copper Rollers Compound, LBS Marg, )
Bhandup (West), Mumbai-400 078 )
2. Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swami )
Narayan Sanstha, a registered Public )
Charitable Trust, having its office at Shree )
Swami Narayan Mandir, 19, Swaminarayan )
Chowk, Dadar (C.R.), Mumbai-400 014. )
3. M/s. Trig Guard Force Ltd., )
th
having their office at Trig House, 10 Road, )
J.V.P.D . Scheme, Juhu, Mumbai-400 049 )...Respondents
Mrs. Vaishali Bhilare for the petitioner.
Mrs. Lata Desai for the Board in all petitions.
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 582 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1073 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1092 OF 2007
WITH
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:48 :::
-2-
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1118 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1186 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1192 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1250 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1251 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1283 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1287 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1288 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1311 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 89 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 434 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 714 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 916 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 929 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 930 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1019 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1164 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1165 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1202 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1358 OF 2007
WITH
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:48 :::
-3-
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1359 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1281 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1093 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1135 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1134 OF 2007
Mr. R.D. Suvarna for respondent No.3 in WP (L) 582 of 2007.
Mr. R.V. Paranjpe for respondent No.2 in WP No. 1073 of 2007.
Mr. B.K. Ashok, instructed by M/s. Beekay Legal, for respondent Nos. 2
and 3 in WP (L) No. 1118 of 2007.
Mr. Prashant Chavan, instructed by M/s. Little & Co., for respondent
No.2 in WP No. 1311 of 2007.
Mrs. Ranjana Todankar for the petitioners in W.P. No. 89 of 2007, 714
of 2007, 916, 929, 930, 1019 of 2007 and (L) Nos. 1164, 1165, 1358,
1359 of 2007 and WP No.1202 of 2007.
Ms. Sonali Humane for the petitioners in WP (L) 1134 and 1135 of 2007.
Mr.S.P . Singh for respondent No.2 in WP (L) Nos. 1134 and 1135 of
2007.
Mr. Indrajeet Kulkarni for respondent No.3 in W) (L) Nos. 1134 and
1135 of 2007.
CORAM SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J.
: &
SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.
Judgment reserved on : July 02, 2007
Judgment delivered on: July 19, 2007
JUDGMENT (Per Swatanter Kumar, C.J.):
In all the above 29 writ petitions on somewhat similar facts,
the petitioners have claimed reliefs for (i) issuance of a writ, order or
direction to the respondent-Security Guards Board to initiate action
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:48 :::
-4-
against the private employer-respondents under Section 42 of the
Security Guards Act for contravening clauses 13 and 25 of the Security
Guards Scheme, (ii) directing the said respondent-Board to register
the security guards listed in Exhibit-A to the writ petitions, and (iii)
directing the respondent-employers to get themselves registered with
the respondent-Board. In some of the writ petitions it is also prayed
that the private employers be restrained from terminating the services
of the security guards as listed in exhibits to the writ petition.
2. The petitioners in some of the petitions are Unions registered
under the Trade Union Act, 1926, while in other cases even the security
guards have filed the writ petitions in their individual capacity. It is the
case of the concerned security guards that they were employed by the
private employers for watch and ward duty. The private employers are
not registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Private
Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981.
There is a clear restriction in law under clause 25 (2) of the Scheme
that a principal employer shall not employ security guards other than
the security guards who have been allotted to the principal employer by
the Security Guards Board. The private respondents, in order to
deprive the security guards of the benefits of the Act and the Scheme,
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:48 :::
-5-
have been engaging the security guards through the security services
agencies contrary to law. Even applications were filed to the Board
giving the details of their employment and claiming the benefits
available to them under the scheme including their registration. Prayer
was made for taking action against the private employers-respondents
but of no effect resulting in filing of these writ petitions.
3. Along with the petitions, the petitioners have annexed certain
documents viz. Attendance registers, identity cards, Union membership,
etc. in support of their claim. In all cases the Board has taken the stand
that the private employers have not got registration and even the
security guards moved applications admittedly as late as in May/June,
2007 and have immediately approached this Court without awaiting for
any response from the Board. According to the private respondents,
who are allegedly their employers, they have denied the relationship of
employer-employee and have also stated that they are not engaging
private security guards for watch and ward duty, as such there is no
cause of action for the petitioners to approach the Courts. It is also
their case that in some cases the services of the security guards were
terminated and there are serious disputes with regard to whose
employees they are and what is the nature of their job and duties. It is
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:48 :::
-6-
not necessary for us to go into any greater detail of each petitions as
similar matters had come up for consideration before this Court. In civil
Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshak Aghadi
Writ Petition No. 563 of 2007 (
The Security Guards Board for Gr. Bombay & Thane District and
vs.
st
others)
, by a detailed order dated 21 June, 2007, the said writ petition,
along with other writ petitions, was disposed of with certain directions
to the Security Guards Board and other concerned authorities. The
relevant portion of the said directions reads as under:-
“11. The Act of 1981 imposes various obligations upon
the Board constituted under the provisions of the Act
for registration of the employers and/or individual
security guards in accordance with the Regulations and
the Scheme formulated by the authorities concerned.
Various disputes have been raised in these writ
petitions including that the writ petitions are premature
inasmuch as the members of the petitioners had not
filed any applications before the Board for their
registration in accordance with law. The employers,
that is the other private respondents, have still raised
various disputes that they have not employed security
guards and the persons employed by them are primarily
carrying on the work like attendants or persons
employed for duties unconnected with the functions to
be performed by a security guard. All these disputes
can be resolved by determination of factual
controversies and keeping in mind what is the actual
situation on site where the office and/or factories of the
private respondents are situated. These controversies
can hardly be resolved by the Court in exercise of its
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
12. Thus, in view of the above discussion, while
disposing of these writ petitions we consider it
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:48 :::
-7-
appropriate to issue the following directions for strict
adherence by the concerned parties/authorities.
(i) All the security guards, petitioners in all the
petitions or the members of the Sangh or the Unions
through whom the present petitions have been filed and
who have not already filed applications for their
registration with the respondent-Board may file such
applications within four weeks from today.
(ii) All the pending applications for registration as
security guards filed by the individuals as well as the
applications received by the Board under clause (i) shall
be dealt with and disposed of by the Board in
accordance with the Regulations and policies framed by
the Board within six weeks thereafter. Orders so passed
by the Board shall be notified, besides copies thereof
being sent to the Union or individual workmen who have
filed these petitions.
(iii) The employer of members of these
petitioners and/or even other employers desirous of
getting registered with the respondent-Board for
providing of security personnel would be also at liberty
to move such applications within four weeks from today
and the same shall be considered and disposed of by
the Board in accordance with law within six weeks
thereafter.
(iv) The Board, through its Officers/Officials, shall duly
verify the stand of the private employers that the
workmen/security guards are not employed and/or
whether the workmen/security guards employed by them
are or not performing the duties of a security guard and
shall prepare an inspection report after site visits. Such
report would be considered by the authorities concerned
for passing an appropriate order.
(v) The individual security guards who are then
registered by the Board shall be allocated to such
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:48 :::
-8-
concerns/establishments which are desirous of
deploying security guards and/or those security guards
who are in employment and are then registered shall be
granted all the benefits in terms of the Regulations upon
the direction of the Board.
(vi) After completion of the above exercise, the
Board shall consider and initiate penal action against
the private respondent-employers in accordance with
the provisions of clause 42 of the Security Guards
Scheme, 2005, and the relevant clause on the date of
passing of this order.
(vii) Wherever private respondent-employers are
required to apply for registration with the respondent-
Board, they shall apply, even if, according to them, the
members of the petitioners are not employed strictly as
security guards and are employed as attendants or car
cleaners, etc. This scheme shall be duly considered by
the Board and decided in accordance with law. We also
make it clear that while allotting the services of the
security guards, the Board will keep in mind the fact that
as to where were they employed at the time or prior to
the institution of these writ petitions.
(viii) The process of registration in either case shall be
subject to the satisfaction of the eligibility criteria in
relation to various factors which are specified under the
Regulations or the Security Guards Scheme framed in
2005”.
4. In the present cases also, the petitioners have filed the writ
petitions without filing applications before the Security Guards Board in
accordance with law. Wherever such applications have been filed, the
petitioners have filed writ petitions in undue haste and thus have
frustrated the very purpose of requiring the authority to discharge its
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:48 :::
-9-
statutory obligations prior to invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No time was
given to the Board to deal with such applications and perform the
inspection so as to enable the representatives of the Board to factually
verify the averments made in the applications and even the present writ
petitions. It will be impermissible for this Court to go into such disputed
facts in the present writ petitions and it would be more appropriate that
the Board in the present cases is also directed to perform its statutory
duty and verify the various factual controversies involved in the present
cases and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
5. For the above reasons, we dispose of these writ petitions
also with the above quoted directions which shall be complied with by
the Board as per the terms of the period indicated in the directions
itself. All the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. However, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their
own costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:48 :::
-10-
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:48 :::
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1323 OF 2007
Maharashtra Rajya Suraksha Rakshah )
& General Kamgar Union, a registered Trade )
Union having its office at 113, Gautam Udyog )
Bhavan, First Floor, LBS Marg, Bhandup, )
Mumbai-400 078 )..Petitioners
versus
1. Security Guards Board for Greater Bombay & )
nd
Thane District, having their head office on 2 )
floor, Copper Rollers Compound, LBS Marg, )
Bhandup (West), Mumbai-400 078 )
2. Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swami )
Narayan Sanstha, a registered Public )
Charitable Trust, having its office at Shree )
Swami Narayan Mandir, 19, Swaminarayan )
Chowk, Dadar (C.R.), Mumbai-400 014. )
3. M/s. Trig Guard Force Ltd., )
th
having their office at Trig House, 10 Road, )
J.V.P.D . Scheme, Juhu, Mumbai-400 049 )...Respondents
Mrs. Vaishali Bhilare for the petitioner.
Mrs. Lata Desai for the Board in all petitions.
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 582 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1073 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1092 OF 2007
WITH
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:48 :::
-2-
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1118 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1186 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1192 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1250 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1251 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1283 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1287 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1288 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1311 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 89 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 434 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 714 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 916 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 929 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 930 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1019 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1164 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1165 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1202 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1358 OF 2007
WITH
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:48 :::
-3-
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1359 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1281 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1093 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1135 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1134 OF 2007
Mr. R.D. Suvarna for respondent No.3 in WP (L) 582 of 2007.
Mr. R.V. Paranjpe for respondent No.2 in WP No. 1073 of 2007.
Mr. B.K. Ashok, instructed by M/s. Beekay Legal, for respondent Nos. 2
and 3 in WP (L) No. 1118 of 2007.
Mr. Prashant Chavan, instructed by M/s. Little & Co., for respondent
No.2 in WP No. 1311 of 2007.
Mrs. Ranjana Todankar for the petitioners in W.P. No. 89 of 2007, 714
of 2007, 916, 929, 930, 1019 of 2007 and (L) Nos. 1164, 1165, 1358,
1359 of 2007 and WP No.1202 of 2007.
Ms. Sonali Humane for the petitioners in WP (L) 1134 and 1135 of 2007.
Mr.S.P . Singh for respondent No.2 in WP (L) Nos. 1134 and 1135 of
2007.
Mr. Indrajeet Kulkarni for respondent No.3 in W) (L) Nos. 1134 and
1135 of 2007.
CORAM SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J.
: &
SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.
Judgment reserved on : July 02, 2007
Judgment delivered on: July 19, 2007
JUDGMENT (Per Swatanter Kumar, C.J.):
In all the above 29 writ petitions on somewhat similar facts,
the petitioners have claimed reliefs for (i) issuance of a writ, order or
direction to the respondent-Security Guards Board to initiate action
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:48 :::
-4-
against the private employer-respondents under Section 42 of the
Security Guards Act for contravening clauses 13 and 25 of the Security
Guards Scheme, (ii) directing the said respondent-Board to register
the security guards listed in Exhibit-A to the writ petitions, and (iii)
directing the respondent-employers to get themselves registered with
the respondent-Board. In some of the writ petitions it is also prayed
that the private employers be restrained from terminating the services
of the security guards as listed in exhibits to the writ petition.
2. The petitioners in some of the petitions are Unions registered
under the Trade Union Act, 1926, while in other cases even the security
guards have filed the writ petitions in their individual capacity. It is the
case of the concerned security guards that they were employed by the
private employers for watch and ward duty. The private employers are
not registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Private
Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981.
There is a clear restriction in law under clause 25 (2) of the Scheme
that a principal employer shall not employ security guards other than
the security guards who have been allotted to the principal employer by
the Security Guards Board. The private respondents, in order to
deprive the security guards of the benefits of the Act and the Scheme,
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:48 :::
-5-
have been engaging the security guards through the security services
agencies contrary to law. Even applications were filed to the Board
giving the details of their employment and claiming the benefits
available to them under the scheme including their registration. Prayer
was made for taking action against the private employers-respondents
but of no effect resulting in filing of these writ petitions.
3. Along with the petitions, the petitioners have annexed certain
documents viz. Attendance registers, identity cards, Union membership,
etc. in support of their claim. In all cases the Board has taken the stand
that the private employers have not got registration and even the
security guards moved applications admittedly as late as in May/June,
2007 and have immediately approached this Court without awaiting for
any response from the Board. According to the private respondents,
who are allegedly their employers, they have denied the relationship of
employer-employee and have also stated that they are not engaging
private security guards for watch and ward duty, as such there is no
cause of action for the petitioners to approach the Courts. It is also
their case that in some cases the services of the security guards were
terminated and there are serious disputes with regard to whose
employees they are and what is the nature of their job and duties. It is
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:48 :::
-6-
not necessary for us to go into any greater detail of each petitions as
similar matters had come up for consideration before this Court. In civil
Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshak Aghadi
Writ Petition No. 563 of 2007 (
The Security Guards Board for Gr. Bombay & Thane District and
vs.
st
others)
, by a detailed order dated 21 June, 2007, the said writ petition,
along with other writ petitions, was disposed of with certain directions
to the Security Guards Board and other concerned authorities. The
relevant portion of the said directions reads as under:-
“11. The Act of 1981 imposes various obligations upon
the Board constituted under the provisions of the Act
for registration of the employers and/or individual
security guards in accordance with the Regulations and
the Scheme formulated by the authorities concerned.
Various disputes have been raised in these writ
petitions including that the writ petitions are premature
inasmuch as the members of the petitioners had not
filed any applications before the Board for their
registration in accordance with law. The employers,
that is the other private respondents, have still raised
various disputes that they have not employed security
guards and the persons employed by them are primarily
carrying on the work like attendants or persons
employed for duties unconnected with the functions to
be performed by a security guard. All these disputes
can be resolved by determination of factual
controversies and keeping in mind what is the actual
situation on site where the office and/or factories of the
private respondents are situated. These controversies
can hardly be resolved by the Court in exercise of its
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
12. Thus, in view of the above discussion, while
disposing of these writ petitions we consider it
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:48 :::
-7-
appropriate to issue the following directions for strict
adherence by the concerned parties/authorities.
(i) All the security guards, petitioners in all the
petitions or the members of the Sangh or the Unions
through whom the present petitions have been filed and
who have not already filed applications for their
registration with the respondent-Board may file such
applications within four weeks from today.
(ii) All the pending applications for registration as
security guards filed by the individuals as well as the
applications received by the Board under clause (i) shall
be dealt with and disposed of by the Board in
accordance with the Regulations and policies framed by
the Board within six weeks thereafter. Orders so passed
by the Board shall be notified, besides copies thereof
being sent to the Union or individual workmen who have
filed these petitions.
(iii) The employer of members of these
petitioners and/or even other employers desirous of
getting registered with the respondent-Board for
providing of security personnel would be also at liberty
to move such applications within four weeks from today
and the same shall be considered and disposed of by
the Board in accordance with law within six weeks
thereafter.
(iv) The Board, through its Officers/Officials, shall duly
verify the stand of the private employers that the
workmen/security guards are not employed and/or
whether the workmen/security guards employed by them
are or not performing the duties of a security guard and
shall prepare an inspection report after site visits. Such
report would be considered by the authorities concerned
for passing an appropriate order.
(v) The individual security guards who are then
registered by the Board shall be allocated to such
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:48 :::
-8-
concerns/establishments which are desirous of
deploying security guards and/or those security guards
who are in employment and are then registered shall be
granted all the benefits in terms of the Regulations upon
the direction of the Board.
(vi) After completion of the above exercise, the
Board shall consider and initiate penal action against
the private respondent-employers in accordance with
the provisions of clause 42 of the Security Guards
Scheme, 2005, and the relevant clause on the date of
passing of this order.
(vii) Wherever private respondent-employers are
required to apply for registration with the respondent-
Board, they shall apply, even if, according to them, the
members of the petitioners are not employed strictly as
security guards and are employed as attendants or car
cleaners, etc. This scheme shall be duly considered by
the Board and decided in accordance with law. We also
make it clear that while allotting the services of the
security guards, the Board will keep in mind the fact that
as to where were they employed at the time or prior to
the institution of these writ petitions.
(viii) The process of registration in either case shall be
subject to the satisfaction of the eligibility criteria in
relation to various factors which are specified under the
Regulations or the Security Guards Scheme framed in
2005”.
4. In the present cases also, the petitioners have filed the writ
petitions without filing applications before the Security Guards Board in
accordance with law. Wherever such applications have been filed, the
petitioners have filed writ petitions in undue haste and thus have
frustrated the very purpose of requiring the authority to discharge its
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:48 :::
-9-
statutory obligations prior to invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No time was
given to the Board to deal with such applications and perform the
inspection so as to enable the representatives of the Board to factually
verify the averments made in the applications and even the present writ
petitions. It will be impermissible for this Court to go into such disputed
facts in the present writ petitions and it would be more appropriate that
the Board in the present cases is also directed to perform its statutory
duty and verify the various factual controversies involved in the present
cases and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
5. For the above reasons, we dispose of these writ petitions
also with the above quoted directions which shall be complied with by
the Board as per the terms of the period indicated in the directions
itself. All the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. However, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their
own costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:48 :::
-10-
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:48 :::