SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Bom) 1669

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(H. L. Gokhale and J. H. Bhatia, JJ.)
MAHARASHTRA SURAKSHA RAKSHAK AGHADI - Petitioner.
vs.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA and others - Respondents.
W. P. No. 5467 of 2005
Decided on 10-10-2006
Advocates Appeared
For petitioner: Sushil Mahadeshwar
For respondent No.1: P. M. Mokashi, A.G.P.
For respondent No.2: P. M. Topkar
For respondent No.3: P. K. Rele, Senior Advocate instructed by Piyush Shah
For respondent No.4: A. K. Jalisatgi

Headnote:Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 - Section 23 - Exemption under - From operation of Act - Grant of - An exception - Not a rule - Opinion of - Administrative wing of Government - Guards of agencies being paid lesser wages - Benefits on whole less favourable - Security Guards Board endorsed said opinion in its affidavit - Notification granting exemption to security agencies quashed. - In the present case, the Advisory Committee does not appear to have been consulted meaningfully. When the statute speaks of consultation with the Advisory Committee the consultation has got to be meaningful. From the record of the Committee, it does not appear to be so. Besides, the Government has to form an opinion as to whether the benefits are on the whole not less favourable. As far as the administrative wing of the Government dealing with this work on a regular basis is concerned, it has clearly given an opinion that the agency did not deserve to get exemption since the benefits were on the whole less favourable. The views expressed by the administrative wing of the Government have come to be endorsed by the Security Guards Board in its affidavit made in the Court and the fact that the guards of the agency were being paid lesser wages is not even controverted in the affidavit of the agency.

JUDGMENT

H. L. GOKHALE, J. :- The petitioner herein is a registered Trade Union which espouses the cause of the private security guards. Through the present Petition, the petitioner - Trade Union is seeking to challenge the two Notifications dated 24-7-2003 and 8-11-2004 issued by the State of Maharashtra granting exemption under section 23 of the Maharashtra·Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") and prays that the same may be quashed and set aside. These two Notifications grant exemption to two agencies supplying private security guards to the factories and/or establishments run by the principal employer. This section 23 empowers the State Government to grant such exemption if the security guards concerned are in the receipt of benefits which are on the whole not less favourable to the security guards provided under the said Act or the Scheme thereunder. It is the contention of the petitioner - Trade Union that, in fact, they are not so favourable and, therefore, the present Writ Petition.

2. Before we examine the submissions of the various parties, we may advert to the salient features of the said Act and particularly section 23 of the said Act granting exemption to the security guards from the coverage of the said Act or the Scheme in certain circumstances. This Act was passed by the legislature of the State of Maharashtra, principally for regulating the employment of private Security Guards employed in factories and establishments in the State and for providing better terms and conditions of employment and welfare through the Board established for that purpose. That is the declared object of this Act as per its preamble. This Board is constituted under section 6 of this Act and is a body corporate. The State Government is supposed to prepare a scheme for ensuring regular employment of the Security Guards for the matters which have been mentioned in section 3 of this Act. The Board is made responsible for administering the above Scheme under section 8 of this Act. The Scheme gives detailed provisions with respect to the registration of the Security Guards and regulating their recruitment and registration of the Guards and the principal employers and about the maintenance of the registers etc. The concepts of agency, employer, principal employer and Security Guards are defined under the said Act. Under sections 19,20 and 21 of the said Act, certain responsibilities are cast on the principal employers under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961. Section 23 of the said Act provides for exemptions to the Security Guards employed by the agencies, if the Security Guards are on the whole receiving not less favourable benefits than those under the said Act or the Scheme.

3. This section 23 of the said Act reads as follows :-

"23. Exemptions. - The State Government may, after consulting the Advisory Committee, by notification in the Official Gazette, and subject to such conditions and for such period as may be specified in the notification, exempt from the operation of all or any of the provisions of this Act or any Scheme made thereunder, all or any class or classes of Security Guards employed by the agency or agent as may be specified in the notification and deployed in any factory or establishment or in any class or classes of factories or establishment, if in the opinion of the State Government, all such Security Guards or such class or classes of Security Guards are in the enjoyment of benefits, which are on the whole not less favourable to such Security Guards than the benefits provided by or under this Act or any Scheme made thereunder.

Provided that, the State Government, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, at any time, for reasons to be specified, rescind the aforesaid notification. "

Thus, this section provides that the State Government has to first consult the Advisory Co
















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top