KRANTIKARI SURAKSHA RAKSHAK SANGHATANA Vs. S V NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the summary rejection of Writ Petition No. 2523 of 1989 by the learned single Judge vide order dated November 6, 1989, the present appeal has been filed by the petitioners.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly, are as follows :

(3.) MR. Singhavi, the learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that respondent No. 2-company was the real employer as the said company had entered into an agreement with respondent No. 3-agency only as a subterfuge and that the real relationship of the security guards in question was with respondent No. 2-company and not with the agency. In this connection, Mr. Singhavi relied upon the fact that the respondent No. 3-agency had not obtained a licence under the Contract Labour Act, 1971 and in the circumstances, the said security guards were direct employees of respondent No. 2-company. Mr. Singhavi also submitted that in any event, there was violation of the provisions of the Security Guards Act, 1981 in as much as there was disparity between the service conditions of the said security guards employed by respondent no. 2-company. Mr. Singhavi accordingly submitted that provisions of item No. 5 and item No. 9 of Schedule IV to the said Act, 1971 would squarely apply.