Disposed

Maharashtra Rajya Suraksha Rakshak and Gen. Kamagar Union v. Security Guards Board for Greater Bombay and Thane District and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Mar 2006WP/6489/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning registration and termination of employees, the Court issued directions to the respondents to facilitate employee registration and prevent termination, alongside mandating the petitioner to file the requisite registration application.

What did the court decide?

Directions to apply for registration and not terminate services; Petitioner to file application for employee registration.

Maharashtra Rajya Suraksha Rakshak and Gen. Kamagar… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO.6489 OF 2005

¶4

 Maharashtra Rajya Suraksha Rakshak

¶5

 & General Kamgar Union ..Petitioner.
 Vs.

¶6

 Security Guards Board for Gr.

¶7

 Bombay & Thane District & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶8

 Mr.S.S.Pakale for the Petitioner.

¶9

 None for the Respondents.

¶10

CORAM :F.I.REBELLO, J. AND

¶11

DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD,J.

¶12

 2nd March, 2006.
 P.C.:

¶13

 Rule. Heard forthwith.

¶14

 Respondent No.3 the agency has not been
 served. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have been served.
 As per the Court’s record, no appearance put up on
 behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 today. In view of
 the orders passed in similar petitions, the present
 Petition can be disposed of by issuing the

¶15

 following directions :

¶16

 i) Respondent No.2 to apply to Respondent No.1
 for registration within four weeks from today.
 On failure to do so, Respondent No.1 to take
 steps against Respondent No.2 according to
 law;

¶17

 ii) The Petitioner in respect of employees at
 Exh.1 to the Petition to file an application
 for registration before Respondent No.1 within
 two weeks from today. On such an application
 being filed, Respondent No.1 to consider the
 same and dispose it of within four weeks
 thereafter;

¶18

 iii) In the meantime, Respondent No.2 not to
 terminate the services of the employees at
 Exh.A and Respondent No.1 to register the said
 employees and then as far as possible to allot
 them to Respondent No.2.

¶19

 Rule made absolute accordingly. There

¶20

 shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

(F.I.REBELLO, J.)

¶22

(DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.)

Maharashtra Rajya Suraksha Rakshak and Gen. Kamagar Union v. Security Guards Board for Greater Bombay and Thane District and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharashtra Rajya Suraksha Rakshak and Gen. Kamagar Union v. Security Guards Board for Greater Bombay and Thane District and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Sangh Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Sugar and Ors.

Jayant Babulal Shah Vs Vasupujya Bhagwan andANR.

Bharat Udhyog Ltd. and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S. Bingo and Associates and Ors. Vs the Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Hari Darshan Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vs Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Bombay and 2 Ors.

Bhaskar Changoji Deotare and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.