Disposed

Krantikari Suraksha Rakshak Sanghatana v. the Securiti Guards Board for Greater Bombay and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Aug 2009WP/1158/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition regarding removal of security guards dismissed. Court held petitioner has alternate statutory remedy via appeal under Clause 33 of the Maharashtra Private Security Guards Scheme, 1981. Petition disposed on this ground without adjudicating merits.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with Rule discharged; direction to file appeal under Clause 33 of 1981 Scheme within three weeks.

Krantikari Suraksha Rakshak Sanghatana Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1158 OF 1999

¶4

Krantikari Suraksha Rakshak Sanghatana .. Petitioner

¶5

V/s The Security Guards Board for

¶6

Gr.Bombay and Thane & Ors.

¶7

.. Respondents

¶8

Ms.Jane Cox for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mrs.Lata Desai for Respondent No.1.

¶10

Mr.C.U.Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms.Pranita Mhatre Dhone i/by M/s.Shaunak Satpute & Co.for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶11

CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & R.G.KETKAR, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 13th August, 2009.

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

By this petition, the petitioner made a grievance against removal of the security guards engaged by Respondent No.2 through Respondent No.1. It is an admitted position that after they were removed from Respondent No.2 they have been allotted to some other employer. In our opinion, it will not be appropriate to entertain this petition because there is clear remedy provided by clause 33 of the Maharashtra Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 and the Scheme framed therein, against an order which according to the security guards amounts to illegal transfer or

¶15

¶16

removal.

¶17

In our opinion, considering the scheme framed under the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 the disputes of such nature should not be first entertained by the High Court because invariably in such cases the disputed questions of fact arise. In that view, the legislature has provided a remedy of an appeal under clause 33 of the 1981 Scheme.

¶18

It is true that the petition has been admitted for final hearing and has been pending for many years, but, as the security guards of the petitioner have been given employment and have been allotted to some other employer, in our opinion, it will not result in any prejudice to the interest of the petitioner if they are required to adopt alternate remedy of filing an appeal to the Chairman under clause 33 of 1981 Scheme. We clearly find that against the order which is impugned in the petition, appeal lies to the Chairman. In our view therefore following order would meet the ends of justice:-

¶19

ORDER

¶20

“Petition is disposed of as the petitioner has alternate remedy of filing appeal under clause 33 of 1981 Scheme. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will file such an appeal within a period of three weeks from today as per clause 33 of 1981 Scheme to the Chairman. Appeal may be filed on behalf of the security guards

¶21

¶22

through the trade union. The learned counsel for Board and the learned counsel for previous employer state that they will not raise any objection to the maintainability of an appeal on the ground of any delay. It is directed that if such an appeal is filed, the Chairman shall dispose it of in accordance with law on merits. Petition disposed of. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.”

¶23

(R.G.KETKAR, J.)

Krantikari Suraksha Rakshak Sanghatana v. the Securiti Guards Board for Greater Bombay and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krantikari Suraksha Rakshak Sanghatana v. the Securiti Guards Board for Greater Bombay 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

Suman M.Patil Vs the Bombay Mun.Corpn. and Anr.

Dr. Sangeeta T. Amladi Vs Greater Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Arvind Govind Naik Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ramchandra Ramswarup Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sundaram Co-Op.Society Ltd.and Ors. Vs Mun.Corpn.for Gr.Bombay

A.G.Ahire Vs Food Corpn.of India and Ors.