IMPORTANT POINTS
Article 246 of the Constitution merely provides for respective legislative fields of Parliament and State legislature. It does not provide for blanket power to Parliament to legislate on entries mentioned in List-II as well.
Presumption towards constitutionality of a statute is well established. Courts should therefore construe a statute to uphold its constitutionality.
Question of repugnancy will arise only when both the Central and the State enactments cover the same matter substantially and that there is a direct and irreconcilable conflict between the two.
Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 aims to regulate the business of private security agencies. Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment & Welfare) Act, 1981, on the other hand deals with service conditions of security guards and is a labour welfare legislation. Both operate in different fields. Labour welfare aspect in the Central Act is only incidental. Hence there is no repugnancy between the two.
Section 23 of the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment & Welfare) Act, 1981 does not compel all security guards employed by the agencies and deployed with various principal employers to seek exemption.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 246 – Does not provide for competence of Parliament – Merely provides for respective legislative fields of Parliament and State legislature – Does not provide for blanket power to Parliament to legislate on entries mentioned in List-II as well – Contention that Parliament has supreme right to legislate over any area as per Article 246(1) – Misplaced. (Para 44)
       (2003) 9 SCC 358 – Relied upon
       (b) Interpretation of statutes – Constitutionality – Presumption towards constitutionality of a statute – Well established – Courts should construe a statute to uphold its constitutionality. (Para 45)
       (2003) 9 SCC 564; (2005) 8 SCC 534; (2012) 6 SCC 312 – Relied upon
       (1983) 1 SCC 147; (1997) 7 SCC 339 – Referred
       (c) Constitution of India – Article 254(1) – Question of repugnancy arises only when a Stale Law and Central Law pertain to the same entry (same subject) in the Concurrent List – To determine whether the State Act pertains to same entry in Concurrent List as the Central Act, pith and substance of the whole enactment, its objects, scope and effect of its provisions has to be examined – Question of repugnancy will arise only when both enactments cover same matter substantially and that there is a direct and irreconcilable conflict between the two. (Para 46, 47)
       (2005) 8 SCC 534; (2011) 3 SCC 139; (2004) 10 SCC 201 – Relied upon
       (1978) 2 SCC 1 – Referred
       (d) Constitution of India – Article 254 r/w Seventh Schedule, Entry 24 in List III and residuary Entry 97 in List I – Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 dealing with regulation of business of security agencies – Relatable to residuary Entry 97 in List I – Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment & Welfare) Act, 1981, on the other hand, dealing with conditions of service of security guards relatable to Entry 24 in List III (Concurrent List) – State Act a labour legislation for which State Legislature is competent – Subject matters of the two Acts substantially different – Both operate in different fields – Connection between the two regarding the regulation of private security agencies only incidental. (Para 50)
       (2004) 4 SCC 489 – Relied upon
       (e) Constitution of India – Article 254 – Repugnancy – Doctrine of occupied field – Question of repugnancy arises only when law made by Parliament and State Legislature occupy the same field – Instantly, Central Act aims to regulate the business of private security agencies – Labour welfare only incidental – State Act, on the other hand dealing with service conditions of security guards is a labour welfare legislation – Both operate in different fields. (Para 51, 52)
       AIR 1959 SC 648; (1983) 4 SCC 45; (1979) 3 SCC 431; (2005) 3 SCC 212 – Relied upon
       1982 Bom LR Vol. LXXXIV 608 – Cited with approval
       (1994) IIILLJ 946 Bom; 2006 (6) ALL MR 401; W.P. No.1085/2003; (2010) 3 SCC 571; (2006) 9 SCC 1; (1980) 1 SCC 4; (1976) 1 SCC 496; (2008) 10 SCC 166; (2001) 8 SCC 676; (1987) 3 SCC 413; AIR 1960 SC 1073; (1995) 1 SCC 574; WP No.2773/2006 – Referred
       (1996) 3 SCC 15; (1987) 2 SCC 692; (2012) 7 SCC 106; (1990) 4 SCC 406; [1955] 1 SCR 799; AIR 1959 SC 648; [1964] 4 SCR 461; (1981) 4 SCC 173; (1989) 1 SCC 724 – Distinguished impliedly
       (f) Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment & Welfare) Act, 1981 – Validity – Challenge on ground of being violative of Article 14 and 19, Constitution of India – Putting reasonable restrictions – Protects rights of private security guards engaged by private security agencies and ensures their welfare by Section 23 and Scheme of 2002 – Act not ultra vires. (Para 53)
       (g) Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment & Welfare) Act, 1981 – Section 23 – Does not compel all security guards employed by the agencies and deployed with various principal employers to seek exemption – exemption can be granted only to those security guards, employed by agencies and deployed with the principal employer; whose benefits on the whole are not less favourable than the benefits provided for or under the Act or any Scheme made thereunder. (Para 54)
       (h) Constitution of India – Article 254 – Repugnancy – Central and State Act occupying different fields – No conflict or repugnancy between the two – Both apply concurrently – State Act duly received assent of the President – Clause 28(1) of Maharshtra Private Security (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 2002 declaratory to objects of the Act – No impediment to business of the private security agencies. (Para 54, 55)
       (1990) 2 SCC 562; (2005) 2 SCC 762; (1991) 4 SCC 139 – Relied upon
       (2011) 8 SCC 708; (1985) 3 SCC 661; (2011) 3 SCC 1; (2001) 4 SCC 642; (2011) 3 SCC 793; [2007] Canadian S.C.R. 3 – Referred
       Facts of the case:
       Writ petitions were filed by various security agencies claiming that after enactment of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 by the Parliament, the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment & Welfare) Act, 1981 is not applicable to the private security agencies and praying that if the State Act remains in operation with respect to private security agencies then the State Government be directed to expeditiously pass orders on the pending applications for exemption under the provisions of the State Act as allowed under Section 23 of the State Act. The High Court found the State Act to be in consonance with the Central Act and directed the State Government to pass orders on the applications for exemption or applications for renewal of exemption filed by the security agencies.

       Finding of the Court:
       There is no repugnancy between the Central and the State Act. Both operate in different fields and can be applied concurrently.
       Result: Appeals dismissed. Contempt petition disposed of.

JUDGMENT

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.

1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8979 of 2013.

2. The present batch of appeals has arisen from the common judgment and order dated 14th August, 2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in a batch of writ petitions being Writ Petition Nos. 1804 of 2007, 64 of 2004, 2316 of 2008 and 200 of 2008.

3. The High Court by means of the common impugned judgment disposed of the writ petitions filed by various security agencies which claimed that after enactment of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “Central Act”) by the Parliament, the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment & Welfare) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the “State Act”) is not applicable to the private security agencies and if the State Act remains in operation with respect to private security agencies then the State Government be directed to expeditiously pass orders on the pending applications for exemption under the provisions of the State Act as allowed under Section 23 of the State Act. The High Court found the State Act to be in consonance with the Central Act and directed the State Government to pass orders on the applications for exemption or applications for renewal of exemption filed by the security agencies.

4. As the present appeals challenge the validity of a State Act in light of a Central Act, the legislative history of the same has to be examined in the light of the current facts. The State Act which came into force on June 29, 1981 received the Presidential assent envisaged under Article 200 of the Constitution of India on September 24, 1981. Under the said Act, the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Scheme of 1981’) was put into place. The constitutional validity of the State Act was challenged before the Bombay High Court in M/s Tradesvel Security Services vs. State of Maharashtra 1982 Bom LR Vol. LXXXIV 608 and the High Court vide its order dated November 2, 1982 upheld the Act on the ground of it being a complete Code and allowed exemptions under Section 23 at initial stage only. The matters came before this Court as special leave petitions which were dismissed in 1983 and the Scheme of 1981 was stayed with a direction to the State Government to dispose of all the applications for exemptions and 2013. the same order was subsequently modified directing that the scheme be brought into force.

5. The State Government duly considered and rejected all the applications and twenty five writ petitions were filed before the High Court challenging the rejection by the State Government. These writs were dismissed and the Division Bench while disposing of the appeals arising therefrom, vide order dated July 11, 1985 stated that the applications were rejected as a result of a policy decision not to grant exemption and the same is incorrect, therefore it was directed that the exemption applications be considered afresh on a case by case basis. Against the same, the Security Guards Board constituted under Section 6 of the State Act, filed special leave petitions before this Court. The said special leave petitions were disposed of in term of the order passed by this Court on April 28, 1987 in Security Guards Board for Greater Bombay and Thane District vs. Security & Personnel Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., (1987) 3 SCC 413 holding that the State Act being a welfare statute is enacted to prevent exploitation, that exemption is not for any security guard but security guards working in factories or establishments and the like and that agencies can also apply for the same.

6. The State Government vide Notification dated March 28, 1990 under Section 23 of the State Act granted exemption to security guards supplied by private security agencies without any reference to a class or classes of factories. The said Notification was challenged by the Trade Unions

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 Supreme(SC) 365

Cases Referred (40)