VIDYA PRASARAK MANDAL Vs. V M SHEVADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MRS. Usha V. Kejariwal, learned A.P.P. is absent. Mr. D.S. Mhaisapurkar, another A.P.P. who is sitting in the Court, says that he is not aware of this mater at all, and that, he cannot make any statement.

(2.) HEARD Mr. Sawant for Petitioners. Perused the proceedings. Mr. Sawant points out that not only the complaint which is filed against the Petitioners is beyond the prescribed time of limitation as per the provisions of Section 468 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, but that, since Petitioner No.1 institution namely, Vidya Prasarak Mandal, which is a registered body under the Societies Registration Act, 1960 and Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, is an establishment, having educational activities, there is an exemption to the educational institution, therefore, the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 is not applicable to Petitioner No.1 institution. Mr. Sawant points out that the word establishment is defined in Section 2, Sub-clause (4) of the above mentioned Act, as follows : "Section 2(4) - Establishment means an establishment as defined in Clause (8) of Section 2 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948". He further draws the attention of the Court to the definition of Establishment as given in section 2(8) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, which states as follows : "Establishment means a shop, commercial establishment, residential hotel, restaurant, eating house, theatre or other place of public amusement or entertainment, to which this Act applies and includes such other establishment as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette declared to be an establishment for the purposes of the Act." He further draws the attention of the Court to Section 4 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, which provides for exemption for the institutions mentioned in Schedule II. Schedule II, serial No.6F mentions that the establishment pertaining to any kind of educational activities are exempted. It is therefore, the contention of Mr. Sawant, appearing for Petitioners that in view of this, Security Guards Act is not applicable to the Petitioner No.1 institution, and the exemption with respect to this, is still in force, and no notification has been issued by the Government of Maharashtra, as on date, withdrawing the said exemption. In view of this, following order is passed : Criminal Writ Petition No.1254 of 1992 is allowed. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Interim relief granted on 9th October, 1992 is vacated. Petition allowed.