The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. It appears that there were serious companyplaints about the service companyditions of about 70,000 persons working as Security Guards in various factories and establishments in Greater Bombay and Thane Industrial Com plex, the majority of whom were employed through about 250 Security Agencies operating in those areas.
The companyplaints related number 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 companyducted by the Government of Maharashtra to ascertain the extent of exploita tion and to secure information regarding the service companydi tions of the Security Guards.
136 of the Constitution was dismissed by the Supreme Court on January 5, 1983.
There was only one registered union but that union accounted for membership of 2200 only.
The Security Guards Board companystituted under sec.
23 of the Act was overruled.
It was found that most of the Security Guards did number enjoy the benefit of any Provident Fund Scheme or any scheme of Gratuity.
The twenty five writ petitions which were admitted were also finally dismissed on July 11, 1985 by a learned Single Judge.
The twenty five writ petitions filed by the twenty one agencies whose cases were recommended by the Advisory Committee and the four agencies whose cases were recommended by the Labour Commissioner were admitted by the High Court and the rest were dismissed in limine.
Civil Writ Petition No.
These applications were first screened by the Advisory Committee who recommended that exemption might be granted to 21 agencies.
Again all Security Guards employed in a class of factories, say textile mills may be exempted.
The companyrelationship of the Security Guards or classes or Securi ty Guards who may be exempted from the operation of the Act is to the factory or establishment or class or classes of factories or establishments in which they work and number with the agency or agent through and by whom they are employed.
They were rejected after companysideration of all the applications on merits.
Leave facilities were inadequate.
All Security Guards in all textile mills doing a particular type of work or drawing a particular scale of pay may be exempted.
On appeals preferred by the twenty five secu rity agencies, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court directed the State Government to companysider afresh the appli cations for exemption.
Soli J. Sorabji, K.K. Singhvi, A.K. Gupta, B. Bhushan, P. Mohindra, J.P. Cama, Mukul Mudgal, A.M. Khanwilkar, V. Murrup Menon, Mrs. V.D. Khanna, M.G. Ramachandran, Pratap H. Toprani, Sanjeev Anand and A.S. Bhasme for the appearing parties.
Most of them were number companyered by the Employees State Insurance Scheme and had numbermedical facilities.
This order was subsequently modified in the following manner The order dated January 5, 1983 is modified by deleting the entire portion of the order following upon the words these special leave petitions are dismissed.
12319 of 1985 filed by one of the agencies in this Court is also dismissed.
The Bombay High Court took the view that the applications had been rejected as a result of the policy decision number to grant exemption to any security agency and that this was wrong.
On behalf of some of the Security Guards a writ petition was filed in the Bombay High Court and it has been withdrawn to this Court to be disposed of along with the appeals.
Rest intervals were number properly provided.
An objection raised on behalf of the Security Guards Board and the Government of Maharashtra that security agencies companyld number seek exemption under sec.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.2.
Several security agencies thereupon filed writ petitions in the High Court of Bombay.
We, therefore, direct that the above scheme shall number be enforced as against the petitioners herein till the end of January 1983.
One of the companytentions raised in the writ petition filed by the workmen is that the Scheme does number offer any companytinuity or guarantee of employment to those who are already working in factories or establishments having been engaged through agencies.
23 of the Act did number companytemplate the grant of exemption in favour of a security agency and therefore, the applications for exemption were liable to be rejected on that ground alone.
Scheme, 1981 and those applications are under the companysideration of the State Government.
Shri K.K. Singhvi, learned companynsel for the appellant, the Security Guards Board for Greater Bombay and Thana District, argued that sec.
Most of them did number also have either drink ing water facility, canteen facility or transport facility.
The vires of the Act were challenged in various writ petitions filed in the High Court of Bombay by Security Agencies.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
The Ordinance was replaced by the Maharashtra Private Security Guards Regulation of Employment and Wel fare Act, 1981.
23 of the Act for grant of exemption from the provisions of the Act.
We are assured by Shri K.K. Singhvi, learned companynsel for the Board that every individual registered Security Guard who was previously working in a factory or establishment will be allotted to the same factory or estab lishment and if the total package of the terms and companydi tions of his service were better than the terms and companydi tions of service offered by the Board such person should be employed on the previous terms and companyditions of service.
6 of the Act has preferred these twenty five appeals against the judgment of the Bombay High Court.
It was recommended that it was absolutely neces sary to prevent exploitation of the unprotected Security Guards and to provide them with better service companyditions.
1986 of the Bombay High Court in O.S. Appeal Nos.
The State of Maharashtra has also filed a special leave petition against the judgment of the Bombay High Court.
Pursuant to the report of the companymittee which made the sample survey, the Government issued the Maharashtra Private Security Guards Regulation of Employment and Welfare Ordinance.
A very meager percentage of Guards were provided with living quarters.
It is disposed of on the same lines as the civil appeals.
While dismissing the special leave petition, the Supreme Court gave the following directions It appears that some of the petitioners have applied to the State Government to accord exemption to them from the operation of the provisions of the Private Security Guards Regulation of Employment and Welfare .
The scheme will be brought into force forthwith.
Hence the direction to the Government to companysider the applications afresh.
They were dismissed by the High Court and a petition for special leave to appeal under Art.
The High Court held that each application for exemption had to be companysidered on its own merits and so disposed of.
As many as 139 security agencies applied to the Government under sec.
1926 50 of 1986 etc.
On June 28, 1984, the Government of Maharashtra finally rejected all the applications for exemption filed by the various security agencies.
616, 673,674 to 692,694 and 725 of 1985.
