Disposed

Maharashtra Rajya Suraksha Rakshak and General Kamgar Union v. Security Guards Board for Greater Bombay , Thane Distrist and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Nov 2007WP/644/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of writ petitions concerning security guard registration. It directed the Security Guards Board to process pending and new applications within six weeks, verify employment status, and initiate penal action under the Security Guards Scheme, 2005, against non-compliant employers.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner members and employers directed to file applications for registration within four weeks; Board to dispose of same within six weeks and initiate penal action.

Maharashtra Rajya Suraksha Rakshak and General Kamgar… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶4

Writ Petition No.644 of 2007

¶5

Maharashtra Rajya Suraksha Rakshak & General Kamgar Union ...Petitioners. Vs Security Guards Board for Gr Mumbai & Thane Districts and ors ..Respondents

¶6

Mr.S.S.Pakale for the petitioners None for respondents

¶7

CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J., & J.P. DEVDADHAR, J.

¶8

Dated: 22^nd November 2007

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

None for the respondents. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the issue raised in this matter is covered by the decision in writ petition 563 of 2007 decided on 21^st June 2007. Hence this petition is disposed of with the following directions :.

¶11

(i)All the security guards, petitioners in all the petitions or the members of the petitioner Union through whom the present petitions have been filed and who have not already filed

¶12

-2-

¶13

applications for their registration with the respondent-Board may file such applications within four weeks from today.

¶14

(ii)All the pending applications for registration as security guards

¶15

filed by the individuals as well as the applications received by the Board under clause (i) shall be dealt with and disposed of by the Board in accordance with the Regulations and policies framed by the Board within six weeks thereafter. Orders so passed by the Board shall be notified, besides copies thereof being sent to the Union or individual workmen who have filed these petition.

¶16

(iii) The employer of members of these petitioners and/or even other employers desirous of getting registered with the respondent-Board for providing of security personnel would be also at liberty to move such applications within four weeks from today and the same shall be considered and disposed of by the Board in accordance with law within six weeks thereafter.

¶17

(iv) The Board, through its Officers/Officials, shall duly verify the stand of the private employers that the workmen/security guards are not employed and/or whether the workmen/security guards employed by them are or not performing the duties of a security

¶18

-3-

¶19

guard and shall prepare an inspection report after site visits. Such report would be considered by the authorities concerned for passing an appropriate order.

¶20

(v) The individual security guards who are then registered by the Board shall be allocated to such concerns/establishments which are desirous of deploying security guards and/or those security guards who are in employment and are then registered shall be granted all the benefits in terms of the Regulations upon the direction of the Board.

¶21

(vi)After completion of the above exercise, the Board shall consider and initiate penal action against the private respondent-employers in accordance with the provisions of clause 42 of the Security Guards Scheme, 2005, and the relevant clause on the date of passing of this order.

¶22

(vii)Wherever private respondent-employers are required to apply for registration with the respondent-Board, they shall apply, even if, according to them, the members of the petitioners are not employed strictly as security guards and are employed as attendants or car cleaners, etc. This scheme shall be duly considered by the Board and decided in accordance

¶23

-4-

¶24

with law. We also make it clear that while allotting the services of the security guards, the Board will keep in mind the fact that where were they employed at the time or prior to the institution of these writ petition.

¶25

(viii)The process of registration in either case shall be subject to the satisfaction of the eligibility criteria in relation to various factors which are specified under the Regulations or the Security Guards Scheme framed in 2005''.

¶26

(ix) Interim order shall continue for the maximum period specified in the order.

¶27

The above writ petition is accordingly disposed of leaving he parties to bear their own costs.

¶28

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶29

J.P.DEVADHAR, J.

Maharashtra Rajya Suraksha Rakshak and General Kamgar Union v. Security Guards Board for Greater Bombay , Thane Distrist and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharashtra Rajya Suraksha Rakshak and General Kamgar Union v. Security Guards Board for Greater Bombay , Thane Distrist and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner Nashik Municipal Corporation Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shaikh Jaibunnisa Abdul Latif and 33 Ors. Vs Niranjan Singh Bajaj and 8 Ors.

Shaikh Jaibunnisa Abdul Latif and 33 Ors. Vs Niranjan Singh Bajaj and 8 Ors.

Sanjay Balasaheb Kotame Vs the Regional Officer - Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and Ors.

Manavta Parmodharam Yuvak Mandal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dharmendra Harilal Bhojak Vs M/S S.S.J. Finance and Security Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors.