Union lacks locus to challenge principal employer's termination of Board-allotted security guards due to absence of privity or employer-employee relationship; Board retains redeployment control; petition not maintainable.

Judgment :

R.I. Chagla, J.

1. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner – Maharashtra Rajya Suraksha Rakshak and General Kamgar Union has on behalf of its Security Guard members, totaling 81 Security Guards, a list of which has been annexed at Exhibit-A to the Petition, sought quashing and setting aside of the impugned Letter dated 11^th August, 2025 (Exhibit-D to the Petition) and impugned Letter dated 25^th August, 2025 (Exhibit-F to the Petition) issued by Respondent No.4 terminating the service of the Security Guards listed at Exhibit-A working in different Departments of Respondent No.3 Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay (“IIT”). Further direction is sought against Respondent Nos.3 and 4 - IIT to continue the service of the registered Security Guards allotted to them by the Respondent No.2 – Board and whose names are listed at Exhibit-A to the Petition.

2. The Petitioner – Union who has filed the present Petition on behalf of Security Guards who are members of the Union has claimed deprivation of the benefits provided in the Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 (referred to as “the said Act”) and the Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme 2002 (referred to as the “said Scheme”), which have been enacted for securing the services of the Security Guards and to provide better service conditions to them.

3. Respondent No.3 - IIT had registered with Respondent No.2 – Security Guards Board as principal employer with Registration No.3174 w.e.f. 30th March, 2016.

4. Respondent No.2 – Board vide its various orders allotted its members / Security Guards to Respondent No.3 - IIT. This was pursuant to the request of the Respondent No.3 – IIT to send Security Guards for securing their premises.

5. The Respondent No.4 - Chief Security Officer and Head of IIT instead of employing the registered Security Guards allotted by Respondent No.2 - Board issued a Letter dated 11^th August, 2025 terminating the service of the Security Guards working with them w.e.f. 10^th October, 2025.

6. Respondent No.2 – Board vide its Letter dated 14^th August, 2025 directed Respondent No.4, not to terminate the service of any Security Guards working with them.

7. Respondent No.4 vide a Letter dated 25^th August, 2025 issued Termination Letter and informed Respondent No.2 – Board that from 10^th October 2025, the service of Security Guards working with Respondent No.3 - IIT will be terminated.

8. Respondent No.2 – Board again by its Letter dated 4^th September, 2025 directed Respondent No.4, not to terminate the service of any Security Guards working with them. It was pointed out in the said letter that the actions taken by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are contrary to Clause 25(2) of the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation and Employment and Welfare) Scheme (Amended), 2005 and directed that the said action of termination is punishable under Clause 42 of the Scheme.

9. It is pertinent to note that Respondent No.1 - State had issued Government Resolution dated 8^th November, 2006 regarding appointment of Security Guards in Respondent No.2 – Board established by the Government as well as appointment of ex- servicemen as Security Guards in Government Boards, Corporations / Municipalities / Local Self Government Institutions / Co-operative Societies / Government Offices etc.

10. Respondent No.2 – Board having issued its letter dated 4^th September, 2025 which had not met with any response, carried out in