SADASHIV Vs. PRO INTERACTIVE SERVICE P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. The issue involved in this petition is as to who should decide the dispute in regard to the applicability of the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981. According to the petitioners, the respondent no. 2 Board constituted under the Act of 1981 does not have jurisdiction to decide the question and the State Government has jurisdiction to decide the same in view of the provisions of Sections 5 and 15 of the Act of 1981.

(2.) The petitioner no. 2 Bank had set up 33 A.T.Ms, and had also engaged certain persons for house keeping and care taking of the A.T.Ms. An inspection was conducted by the Inspector of the respondent no. 2 Board on 4/10/2010 and it was found by the respondent no. 2 Board that certain Security Guards were engaged at the locations where the A.T.Ms. were set up. The persons engaged by the petitioner Bank informed the Inspector that they were engaged as Security Guards. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioners asking them why action under the provisions of the Act of 1981 should not be initiated against them for non-compliance of the provisions of the Act of 1981. The petitioners replied to the show cause notice and stated that the Act of 1981 would not be applicable to the petitioner Bank as the petitioner Bank has not engaged the Security Guards at the sites where the A.T.Ms. were set up and the persons were employed for the purpose of house keeping. A notice of hearing was served on the petitioners after the time stipulated in the notice and hence, the petitioners were not heard before the impugned order holding that the Act of 1981 was applicable to the petitioner establishment was passed on 11/8/2011.

(3.) It is canvassed by Shri Thakur, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, by taking this Court through the provisions of Sections 5 and 15 of the Act of 1981 that the respondent no. 2 Board did not have jurisdiction to decide the question of applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1981 to the petitioner establishment and it was only the State Government, which could have decided the question. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that when a question arises whether any scheme applies to any class of Security Guards or the principal employer like the petitioner Bank, the matter needs to be referred to the State Government and the State Government would take a decision on the question after consultation with the Advisory Board constituted under Section 15 of the Act of 1981. The learned Counsel further submits that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside as they suffer from a jurisdictional error. It is contended that it was necessary either for the respondent no. 2 Board or the principal employer to refer the dispute in regard to the question of applicability of the Act of 1981 to the State Government.