DOM FERNANDEZ Vs. V M SHEVADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel Mr. Menon for the petitioner and learned A. P. P. for the State/respondent No. 2.

(2.) MR. Menon states that he has given an intimation of todays hearing to the office of the Inspector Shevade as directed by this Court yesterday. However, nobody is present for respondent No. 1.

(3.) THE question involved in this case is, whether the petitioner who was original accused No. 3 can be said to be an employer within the meaning of the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred as the Act ). The word employer is defined in sub-section (3) of section 3 of the said Act and also there is a definition of word Principal Employer. employer , in relation to a Security Guard engaged by or through an agency or agent, means the principal employer, and in relation to any other Security Guard, the person who has ultimate control over the affairs of the factory or establishment and includes any other person to whom the affairs of such factory or establishment are entrusted, whether such person is called an Agent, Manager or by any other name prevailing in the factory or establishment ; Principal Employer means an employer who has engaged Security Guards through an agency or agent ; 3. The petitioner was accused No. 3 in the complaint filed by respondent No. 1 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 30th Court, at Ballard Estate, Bombay. Original accused No. 1 was Standard Chartered Bank and original accused No. 2 was John Docherthy and the present petitioner was the original accused No. 3. It was the allegation in the complaint that on 2-3-1994 the complainant visited the establishment of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 at 23. 25, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bombay. At that time accused No. 3 was present. On further inquiries the complainant learnt that the accused were engaging three Security Guard through M/s. Jay Detectives and Investigators. A correspondence between the complainant and original accused Nos. 1 and 2 followed thereafter and, the complainant was informed by the accused by letter dated 25-4-1994 that they have terminated the services of Jay Detectives and Investigators and have engaged the guards through M/s. Allwyn Security Services.