Disposed

Shivshai Suraksha Rakshak and General Kamgar Sena v. Nashik District Security Guards Board and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Nov 2011WP/948/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking direction to register security guards listed in Exhibit A and allot them to respondent no.2 establishment under Maharashtra Private Security Guards Act, 1981.

What did the court decide?

Respondent no.1 to consider registration and allotment prayer on merits within 12 weeks without expressing opinion on merits.

Shivshai Suraksha Rakshak and General Kamgar… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

1 w948.11

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.948 OF 2011

¶5

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders. Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

¶6

Ms.Sonali Humne i/b Ms.Ranjana Todankar for the petitioners. Ms.Lata Desai for respondent no.1.

¶7

CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE &

¶8

K.K.TATED, JJ. DATED : 29/11/2011

¶9

PC:

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent no.1.

¶11

By this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking direction to respondent no.1 to register the security guards listed at Exhibit "A" to the petition and to allot them to respondent no.2 establishment. This court is informed that some members of the petitioner-union approached respondent no.1 seeking their registration in September 2010. Similarly, the petitioners also made representation to respondent no.1 - board on

¶12

2 w948.11

¶13

6th September, 2010 at Exhibit "E" colly. Till this date according to the petitioners, respondent no.1 has not considered their request. In the facts and circumstances of the case learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if directions are issued to respondent no.1 to consider their request for registration under the provisions of Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that respondent no.1

¶14

board shall consider the applications made by individual members of the petitioner-union or of the union, if not considered already, in accordance with law. In the circumstances we are satisfied that this petition can be disposed of by the following order:

¶15

Respondent no.1 to consider the prayer of the petitioners seeking registration of its members as the security guards listed at Exhibit "A" to the petition and to allot them to respondent no.2 establishment on merits in accordance with law as expeditiously as

¶16

3 w948.11

¶17

possible and preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioner to communicate this order to respondent no.1 within a period of two weeks from today. While passing this order we shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case.

Shivshai Suraksha Rakshak and General Kamgar Sena v. Nashik District Security Guards Board and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivshai Suraksha Rakshak and General Kamgar Sena v. Nashik District Security Guards Board 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

Dattatraya Pandurang Khartode Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Ors.

Vasant Chintamani Kshirsagar, Vs the Life Insurance Corporation of India and Anr.

Vanita Vinayak Kalwaghe Vs Vinayak Kalwaghe

Gautam H Tupere Vs University of Mumbai and Ors.

Prabhakar Zingu Rane, Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ashok Shripathi Shinde Vs the Chief Exectutive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sangli and Ors.