SURAKSHA KARMACHARI SANGHATANA REGN. NO. NGP5000, THR. ITS PRESIDENT SHRI BHASKAR S/O VITTHAL BAGUL R/O PLOT NO. 6, BEHIND PANCHSHEEL NIGHT SCHOOL, JAIBHIM NAGAR, RAMESHWARI ROAD, NAGPUR. Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY INDUSTRIES, POWER AND LABOUR DEPARTMENT, MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI 400 032.
LAWS(BOM)-2017-2-112
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on February 08,2017

Suraksha Karmachari Sanghatana Regn. No. Ngp5000, Thr. Its President Shri Bhaskar S/O Vitthal Bagul R/O Plot No. 6, Behind Panchsheel Night School, Jaibhim Nagar, Rameshwari Road, Nagpur. Appellant
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary Industries, Power And Labour Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. - (1.) The Hon'ble Apex Court on 02.12.2011 stayed the interim orders of this Court dated 08.09.2011 which directed Respondent No. 3 to provide work as Security Guards to the members of the petitioner association who were working with it on 30.01.2009, till final disposal of present writ petition. Writ Petition was to be disposed of within a period of three months thereafter and it appears that for one reason or the other, it could not be taken up.
(2.) We have accordingly heard Shri Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri S.P. Deshpande, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent No.1, Shri M.R. Pillai, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, Shri G.E. Moharir, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and Shri Amit Madiwale, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith.
(3.) Shri Mirza, learned counsel has invited our attention to the Scheme of the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1981 and 2002 Scheme framed thereunder. These statutory provisions hereinafter shall be referred to as 1981 Act or 2002 Scheme. His contention is, the Security Guards in employment of Respondent No. 3 as on 05.12.2002 could not have been discontinued and the steps to get them registered with respondent No. 2 Board should have been taken. Respondent No. 3 is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and though supposed to be a Model employer, was/ is changing contractors but retaining the very same Security Guards for years together. Members of petitioner No. 1 - Association have continued since 199697 under different contractors. Precisely to address this situation, 1981 Act was brought into force. That act has been extended to Nagpur on 05.12.2002 when 2002 Scheme also became applicable. Respondent No. 3 - Model Employer as also respondent Nos. 1 & 2 saw to it that exploitation of Security Guards continues and the members of petitioner No. 1 - association continue to suffer. He submits that respondent No. 2 - Board has avoided to discharge its obligation and remained satisfied by filing prosecution which has not been diligently prosecuted thereafter.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.