MAHARASHTRA RAJYA SURAKSHA RAKSHAK AND GENERAL KAMGAR UNION Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed by a registered union, namely the Maharashtra Rajya Suraksha Rakshak and General Kamgar Union, challenges the validity and legality of the Notification issued by the government of Maharashtra on 28th of March 1990 under Section 23 of the Maharashtra Private security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981. State of Maharashtra is imp leaded as Respondent No. 1 while the Security Guards Board for Greater Bombay and thane District is Respondent No. 2. Respondents 3 to 31 are various private security agencies mentioned in the Notification impugned in this petition.

(2.) BEFORE the petition could be heard Shri Kurup appearing for some of the respondent - security agencies as also Shri Toprani appearing for Respondent No. 16 raised preliminary objections not for the maintainability of the petition but regarding the hearing of the petition. The first objection raised was that Shri K. K. Singhvi, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, should not be permitted to argue the petition on behalf of the petitioners De-cause on the earlier occasions in matters connected with this Act, Shri Singhvi had represented the State of Maharashtra. We failed to find any merit in this objection. We do not think that it is for the Court or for the contestings respondents to decide as to who should argue the petition on behalf of the petitioners. It is not the claim of Shri Kurup and Shri Toprani that Shri Singhvi had appeared for any of the private agency on any earlier occasion. The second objection is regarding the placement of the petition on the roster of this board. This objection is also frivolous and without any merit. It is to be noted that this petition initially came up for admission before the Bench consisting of Shri justice Pratap and Shri Justice Sawant who were hearing the writ petitions for admission. It appears that certain objections were raised before the said Bench and the Division Bench directed that the petition should be posted before some other Court. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the learned Chief Justice and the learned Chief Justice directed the matter to be placed before a Division Bench consisting or Shri Justice Pendse and Shri Justice Da Silva who were also hearing the writ petitions. The petition was accordingly admitted prior to Diwali vacation, i. e. on 8th of October, 1990. At the time of admission, the petitioner prayed and applied for interim stay but the Bench declined to grant any interim stay as it made the Rule returnable peremptorily on 12th of November 1990. The order of the Bench is as under:-"no interim relief at present. In case the petition could not be heard by end of November 1990, liberty to apply for interim relief. Thus, it is clear that the interim relief was rejected in view of the fact that the petition was peremptorily fixed for final hearing. It appears that the matter appeared before the Division bench taking order matters on the appellate side as there were some office objections. It is thereafter that this petition was placed on Board at Sr. No. 1a on 19th of November, 1990 and reached hearing after the routine admission work was over. In view of these facts, we fail to appreciate any merit in the contention of Shri Kurup and Shri Toprani regarding the hearing of this petition. The third objection is rather unfortunate. Learned Counsel submitted that the matter should be heard by some other Court because one of us (Pendse, J.) had heard earlier petitions when the Government had declined to grant exemption to some of the security agencies who are respondents to this petition. This petition has nothing to do with the earlier petitions and, in fact, we find it highly improper for the Counsel to rise such an objection. We depreciate such a practice.

(3.) IN order to appreciate the controversy raised by this petition, it is necessary to briefly trace the history in the matter. As it was found that the contract labour system in various industries and establishments had become the rule of the day and as it was further found that the Security guards employed by the private agencies were exploited in more than one way on the basis of a recommendation of a committee specially appointed to investigate the matter the State of maharashtra promulgated the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Ordinance of 1981 which was subsequently made into an Act known as "maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act of 1981". The private security agencies challenged the constitutional validity of the said Act. The learned single Judge on the original side of this Court repelled the constitutional challenge and held the act constitutionally valid. The judgment of this Court in the said case of Tradeswell Security v. State of Maharashtra is reported in 84 Bombay Law Reporter at Page 608. The decision of the learned single judge was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division bench of this Court dismissed the appeal and ultimately the matter went upto the Supreme Court, but the Supreme court also dismissed the Special Leave Petition in limine.