JUDGMENT - Y.S. JAHAGIRDAR, J. :---This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner - Trade Union on behalf of its 4 members viz. S/Shri A.B. Jadhav, D.L. Mahanty, N.G. Dhumak, who had been working as Security Guards with respondent No. 2 and Shri M.M. Kamble who had been working as Security Guard with respondent No. 3 Though the petitioner seeks general declaratory reliefs, Mr. Singhavi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, restricted the same to four employees as mentioned hereinabove.

2.So far as S/Shri A.B. Jadhav, D.L. Mahanty and M.G. Dhumak are concerned, their services were allotted to respondent No. 2 - Tata Electric Companies Unit 6. On a complaint dated 4th of July 1988 from respondent No. 2 that S/Shri Jadhav and Mahanty did not wait for their reliever, their services were withdrawn by the Board treating the said act as misconduct. The withdrawal is alleged to be immediately after 4th of July 1988 though the exact date is not available on record. Shri Jadhav has since 24th of November 1988 been re-allotted to Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank and Shri Mahanty has been re-allotted to Asia Flavour and Flagrances with effect from 5th of July 1988.

3.So far as Shri M.G. Dhumak is concerned, there was a complaint that he was found sleeping on duty on 3rd of July 1988. On this complaint, his services were also withdrawn some-time from 4th of July 1988. Shri Dhumak has since been re-allotted to Bombay Municipal Corporation from 17th of February, 1989.

4.So far as Shri M.M. Kamble is concerned, he was working as Security Guard with respondent No. 3 - Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and has been withdrawn by the Board on a complaint of misconduct on 1st of July 1988. We have been told on behalf of the Board that Shri Kamble thereafter has not reported back to the Board. None of the parties before us are aware as to whether Shri Kamble has since then taken any employment on his own. Since he did not report back to the Board, the question of his re-allotment to any other establishment did not arise.

5.It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Security Guard once allotted to particular establishment or employer, cannot be withdrawn by the Board and the fair reading of the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment Welfare) Scheme, 1981 (hereinafter, for the same of brevity, referred to as the said "Scheme 1981") would indicate that it is a one time exercise and the Board has no power to withdraw the Guard once allotted to an establishment. It was also submitted that such withdrawal of Security Guard, if held permissible, has to be after following the procedure under Clause 31 of the said Scheme 1981, and more so, if the withdrawal is on a complaint. It was emphasized that the Board was under no obligation to oblige the principal employer by forthwith withdrawing the services of Security Guard which are allotted to such establishment merely on a complaint from the said establishment. It is, therefore, argued on behalf of the petitioner that if the services of Security Guard are withdrawn on a complaint by the establishment of the registered principal employer, then such withdrawal can only be after following the procedure under Clause 31 pertaining to the disciplinary action and not otherwise and if withdrawal is without following the said procedure, then it amounts to termination or retrenchment of services entitling the Security Guard to claim the reliefs of reinstatement with back wages. To emphasize the point that the principal employer is the establishment and the said establishment is liable to be proceeded against for the purpose of reliefs of reinstatement and back wages, Mr. Singhavi has placed reliance on the following decisions of the Apex Court.

(1) A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1626 (Visakapatnam Dock Labour Board v. Stevedores Association Vishakhapatnam others)1

(2) 1987(2) Bom.C.R. 705(S.C.) (The Security Guard Board

Click Here to Read the rest of this document