Case Note & Summary
The petition was filed by Bhartiya Suraksha Rakshak & General Kamgar Union, a trade union, espousing the cause of security guards employed by the Second Respondent. The Third Respondent is a private agency supplying security guards to various establishments. The Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 was extended to several districts including Nagpur, Aurangabad, Pune, Nasik and Raigad. The petitioner contended that the Second Respondent was not registered as an employer under the Act and yet continued to engage security guards from the Third Respondent, who had not obtained any exemption. This was alleged to be a breach of clause 26(2) of the Statutory Scheme, which prohibits a registered employer from employing a security guard other than one allotted by the Security Guard Board. The Court noted that several orders of Division Benches of this Court had been passed on similar issues. The Court allowed the petition, directing the Security Guard Board to take appropriate action against the Second Respondent for non-compliance with the Act and Scheme. The Court also directed the Board to ensure that the Second Respondent registers as an employer and employs only security guards allotted by the Board. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Security Guards - Registration of Employer - Clause 26(2) of Statutory Scheme under Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 - Prohibition on employing guards not allotted by Board - The petition was filed by a trade union alleging that the Second Respondent, an unregistered employer, was engaging security guards from the Third Respondent in violation of the Act and Scheme. The Court held that the employer must be registered and must employ only guards allotted by the Board, and directed the Board to take appropriate action. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Second Respondent, being an unregistered employer, can engage security guards from the Third Respondent in violation of the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 and the Scheme framed thereunder.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The Security Guard Board is directed to take appropriate action against the Second Respondent for non-compliance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 and the Scheme framed thereunder. The Board shall ensure that the Second Respondent registers as an employer and employs only security guards allotted by the Board. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Statutory Scheme under Maharashtra Private Security Guards Act
- 1981
- Clause 26(2) prohibits registered employer from employing security guards other than those allotted by the Board
- Employer must be registered under the Act
- Trade union can espouse cause of workers
