MAHARASHTRA SURAKSHA RAKSHAK AGHADI Vs. SECURITY GUARDS BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common judgment we will dispose of the above five petitions, as they base identical question of law on somewhat similar facts. It is not necessary for us to deal with the facts of each case in greater detail. It will be suffice to refer to the facts of Writ Petition No. 585 of 2007.

(2.) THE petitioner is a union registered under the Trade unions Act,1926,hereinafter referred to as the "unions Act". The security guards mentioned in Exhibit A to the petition are the members of the petitioner union. They are employed for watch and ward duty in the establishment of respondent No. 2, through its contractor respondent No. 3. The attendance muster in respect of the security guards for the month of October 2006 are being maintained and have annexed to this petition as exhibits B, B1, and B2. In terms of the provisions of the maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of employment and Welfare) Act, 1981, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", respondent No. 2 is the principal employer within the meaning of section 2 (8) of the Act and respondent No. 3 is a private contractor engaged in the business of supplying security guards to various establishments. Some of the security guards, details of which are provided in Exhibit A to the petition, are stated to be not exempted from the provisions of the Act and the provisions of the Private Security Guards (Regulation of employment and Welfare)Scheme, 2005, hereinafter referred to as the "scheme". In terms of the Scheme, a principal employer may engage security guards registered with the Security guards Board and allotted to the principal employer by the board. The security guards, who have been granted exemption by the Government from the provisions of the Scheme or the act and are engaged by a principal employer and the security guards, who are directly employed by the principal employer. Respondent No. 2 has engaged security guards who are not exempted under the provisions of the Scheme, which is an illegal act.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioners the State in exercise of its powers under section 8 (4) of the Act had issued directions on 19th June 2006 with respect to the registration of the security guards with the Board. These directions, inter alia, provide that in the cases where the principal employer engages security guards, who are not granted exemption by the Government, the principal employer ought to be registered with the Board and the security guards concerned should also be registered with the board and allotted to that establishment. On 24th January, 2007 the petitioner forwarded an application of individual security guards for their registration with the Board and in view of the government Resolution of 19th January 2006, requested the bord to register the security guards with the Board and to allot them to Respondent No. 2 establishment. In spite of the said application the Board had not taken any action. The petitioner while relying upon the judgment of this court in the case of M/s tradesvel Security Guards vs State of Maharashtra reported in 1982 B. L. R. 602 argued that the object of the Act is to eliminate the contractor and to stop the exploitation of the security guards by the contractor and to ensure them regular employment and better service conditions. This object has been squarely defeated, according to the petitioner, by the inaction on the part of the Board, permitting continuation of the employment of the workers supplied by respondent No. 2 in terms of Exhibit A to the petition. It is also pointed out that the security guard is paid wages at the rate of Rs. 3900/- per month and no over time is paid to these workers. Petitioner also emphasised that the board ought to have taken penal action against respondent No. 2 for illegally engaging security guards through private contractor in terms of clause 42 of the Scheme, which they have failed to take. Reliance was also placed upon an order passed by this court in the case of Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshak aghadi vs The Security Guards Board for Gr Bombay and thane District and ors - Writ Petition No. 1892 of 2004 decided on 19th July, 2004 wherein certain directions were issued in somewhat similar matters. Separate replies have been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2, it is averred that a careful reading of the Government resolution dated 19th June 2006, clearly indicates that it applies to only those establishments, which had appointed security guards from the private security guards agency, without obtaining exemption from the Government. The petitioners are stated to be the employees of respondent No. 3, a private security guard agency and were engaged by respondent No. 2 establishment at the time when respondent No. 2 was duly exempted under the provisions of the Act and the Scheme. It is stated that there is no right in favour of the petitioners that can justify issuance of mandamus in their favour. Respondent No. 3 security guard agency is stated to be duly exempted under the provisions of section 23 of the Act and in any case the aforesaid government Resolution is not applicable to respondent No. 2. The petition merits dismissal. In paragraph 3 of the reply affidavit it is stated as under: