Writ petitions by Board-allotted security guards against principal employers are not maintainable due to lack of privity.

The Petitioner Union, representing 81 security guards, challenged termination letters dated August 11, 2025, and August 25, 2025, issued by Respondent No. 4 (Chief Security Officer, IIT Bombay).

Respondent No. 3 (IIT Bombay) was registered as a principal employer with the Respondent No. 2 (Security Guards Board) and had been using guards allotted by the Board since 2016.

IIT Bombay decided to terminate the services of the Board-allotted guards to engage security personnel through the Maharashtra State Security Corporation (MSSC) and private agencies.

Despite directions from the Board not to terminate the services, IIT proceeded with the termination.

The Petitioner sought quashing of the termination and a direction for IIT to continue their services.

1. Whether the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner Union is maintainable in the absence of privity of contract between the security guards and the principal employer (IIT Bombay).

2. Whether Respondent No. 3 (IIT Bombay) constitutes an "establishment" under Section 2(8) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, as adopted by the Security Guards Act, 1981.

3. Whether security guards allotted by the Board have a vested right to be continued at a specific establishment or if they remain subject to the Board's power of re-deployment.

The Court applied the Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981, and the Private Security Guards Scheme, 2002.

The Court relied on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Krantikari Suraksha Rakshak Sanghatana v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (2008) 10 SCC 166, which established that pool guards allotted by the Board do not become direct or regular employees of the principal employer and that the Board retains control over their transfer and re-deployment.

The Court also referenced Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshak Aghadi v. Maharashtra Film, Stage and Culture Development Corporation Ltd. (2018), which held that an establishment is not statutorily compelled to employ guards only through the Board if it chooses to engage the Maharashtra State Security Corporation (MSSC).

Regarding statutory definitions, the Court noted the doctrine of ejusdem generis concerning the definition of "establishment" under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948.

The Court reasoned that there is no employer-employee relationship or privity of contract between the security guards (or their Union) and IIT Bombay.

Under the 1981 Act and the Krantikari precedent, the guards remain under the statutory control of the Board, which possesses the exclusive power to re-deploy them to other establishments.

Consequently, the guards have no legal or vested right to remain attached to IIT Bombay indefinitely.

The Court observed that if the termination of the contract between the Board and IIT was to be challenged, such a challenge must be brought by the Board itself, which had chosen not to file the petition.

Therefore, the Union could not compel IIT to continue the services of its members as they are not IIT’s direct employees.

The petition was dismissed.

The Court granted a four-week stay on the operation of this judgment to allow the Petitioner to seek appellate remedy, maintaining the status quo regarding the interim order previously in place.