Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court disposed of two writ petitions filed by Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshan Aghadi, a registered trade union, challenging notifications issued by the Security Guards Board for Greater Mumbai and Thane District granting exemption to security guards employed by certain principal employers under Section 23 of the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981. In Writ Petition No. 6749 of 2009, the petitioner sought quashing of a notification dated 8th April, 2009 exempting security guards employed by M/s. New Bombay Park Hotel Pvt. Ltd. (respondent No.4) from the provisions of the Act for one year. In Writ Petition No. 4252 of 2009, the petitioner challenged a similar exemption granted to M/s. Industrial Security Consultants Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner argued that the Board had not applied its mind and that the trade union should have been heard before granting the exemption. The respondents contended that the Board had considered all relevant factors and that there was no requirement to hear the union. The Court held that the power under Section 23 is discretionary and the Board had properly exercised it. The Court found no violation of natural justice as the Act does not mandate hearing trade unions. Both petitions were dismissed, and the exemptions were upheld.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Security Guards - Exemption under Section 23 of Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 - The Board granted exemption to security guards employed by respondent No.4 principal employer from the provisions of the Act for a period of one year. The petitioner trade union challenged the notification on grounds of lack of hearing and non-application of mind. The Court held that the Board's power under Section 23 is discretionary and the Board had considered the relevant factors, including the nature of employment and the welfare of the guards. The Court also held that there is no requirement to hear trade unions before granting exemption under Section 23. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 3-10) B) Industrial Law - Security Guards - Hearing before exemption - Section 23 of Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 - The petitioner trade union argued that it should have been heard before the exemption was granted. The Court held that the Act does not provide for any hearing to trade unions before granting exemption under Section 23. The Board's decision was based on the application and relevant material, and the Court found no violation of principles of natural justice. (Paras 8-10) C) Industrial Law - Security Guards - Validity of exemption notification - Section 23 of Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 - The Court examined the notification dated 8th April, 2009 and found that the Board had applied its mind to the facts of the case, including the nature of the principal employer's business and the terms of employment of the security guards. The Court upheld the exemption as being within the Board's discretion and not arbitrary. (Paras 3-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Security Guards Board for Greater Mumbai and Thane District validly exercised its power under Section 23 of the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 to grant exemption to security guards employed by a principal employer, and whether the petitioner trade union was entitled to be heard before such exemption was granted.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are dismissed. The exemption notifications are upheld. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Exemption under Section 23 of the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act
- 1981 is discretionary
- not automatic
- Board must consider all relevant factors
- no requirement to hear trade unions before granting exemption
- exemption can be granted for a specified period.
