Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1987 Supreme(SC) 472

O.CHHINNAPPA REDDY, V.KHALID
Security Guards Board For Greater Bombay And Thane Distt. – Appellant
Versus
Security And Personnel Service Private LTD. – Respondent

Advocates:
A.M.KHANWILKAR, A.S.BHASME, ANIL GUPTA, B.BHUSHAN, J.P.CAMA, K.K.SINGHVI, K.V.MURRUP MENON, M.G.RAMA CHANDRA RAO, Mukul Mudgal, N.P.MAHENDRA, PRATAP H.TOPRANI, SANJIV AGRAWAL, SOLI J.SORABJI, V.D.KHANNA

Judgement Key Points

Key Points:- The Act and Scheme apply to Security Guards engaged through an agency or on terms where not direct regular employees, and define relevant terms (agency, employer, establishment, factory, principal employer, Security Guard) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - Section 22 preserves existing rights if more favorable, Section 23 allows exemptions for all or any class of Security Guards if benefits are not less favorable overall; exemptions pertain to guards across factories/establishments, not specifically to agencies (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The scheme contemplates registration, allotment, wages, and transfer mechanics, ensuring that registered guards may be allotted to factories/establishments and possess continuity of terms if better, with transfer of service implied on allotment (!) (!) (!) (!) - Courts may examine exemption decisions for mala fides or arbitrariness; however, reasons for rejection need not be stated in every case, provided there is no mala fides/arbitrariness; a policy decision may underlie refusals but merits are to be considered (!) (!) - The judgment directs dismissal of appeals and reinforces that assurances ensure guards previously working will be allotted to same factory/establishment if terms are better, and bans improper capitation/sponsorship for registration (!) (!) (!)

What is the scope and applicability of the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 and its Scheme to security guards employed through agencies?What are the conditions and legality of granting exemptions from the operation of the Act or the Scheme under Section 23, including who may apply and on what basis?What are the implications for continuity of employment and rights of security guards when transferred from agency employment to establishment/ factory employment under the Scheme?

Judgement

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. :- It appears that there were serious complaints about the service conditions of about 70,000 persons working as Security Guards in various factories and establishments in Greater Bombay and Thane Industrial Complex, the majority of whom were employed through about 250 Security Agencies operating in those areas. The complaints related not merely to insufficient remuneration paid to them by the agencies, but also to insecurity of service and other forms of exploitation. There was a sample survey conducted by the Government of Maharashtra to ascertain the extent of exploitation and to secure information regarding the service conditions of the Security Guards. The sample survey revealed that most of the agencies were not registered under the Shops and Establishments Act. There was only one registered union but that union accounted for membership of 2200 only. It was found that most of the Security Guards did not enjoy the benefit of any Provident Fund Scheme or any scheme of Gratuity. Most of them were not covered by the Employees State Insurance Scheme and had no medical facilities. Leave facilities were inadequate. Rest intervals were not properly provid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1987 Supreme(SC) 472

O.CHHINNAPPA REDDY, V.KHALIDSecurity Guards Board For Greater Bombay And Thane Distt. – AppellantVersusSecurity And Personnel Service Private LTD. – Respondent

O.CHHINNAPPA REDDY, V.KHALID
Security Guards Board For Greater Bombay And Thane Distt. – Appellant
Versus
Security And Personnel Service Private LTD. – Respondent