Maharashtra Rajya Suraksha Rakshak Sanghtana v. Raigad Dist. Security Guards Board Panvel And ORS

skn 1 33-WP-12570.2022.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12570 OF 2022 Maharashtra Rajya Suraksha Rakshak Sanghatana.

...

Petitioner.

V/s.

Raigad District Security Guards Board and others.

...

Respondents.

Ms.Sonali Humane i/b. Ms.Ranjana Todankar for the Petitioner. Pavitra Manesh i/b. M.S.Topkar for Respondent No.1. Mr.A.P.Vanarase, AGP for the State.

SANJAY KASHINATH NANOSKAR CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ.

SANJAY KASHINATH NANOSKAR Date: 2022.11.16 12:07:25 +0530 DATE :

11 November 2022.

P.C. :

This petition is filed on behalf of the Union seeking to represent its members- the security guards, the details of whom have been given in the petition. By this petition, an omnibus grievance is made as against 32 different establishments- the principal employers that the security guards through Respondent No.1 are not being engaged by these Respondents. Accordingly a direction is sought that Respondent No.1- the Board should issue allotment orders to the members of the Petitioner- Union and a further direction that necessary directions be issued to Respondent Nos.3 to 34 to engage the security guards.

skn 2 33-WP-12570.2022.doc 2.

The Respondent No.1- Raigad District Security Guards Board is constituted under section 6 of the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981. Under the Act of 1981, Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme of 2002 has been framed. Under the Act and the scheme, the Board is entrusted with the task of ensuring an employment to the security guards and to carry out measures for regulating the services and for welfare of the security guards. Therefore, under the statute, Respondent No.1Board that would be the authority to look into the grievances of the Petitioner at the first instance and also to take necessary action as against Respondent Nos.3 to 34, if it is warranted in law. 3.

We, therefore, dispose of this petition directing Respondent No.1- Board to consider this petition as an application made to Respondent No.1- Board and after following the necessary procedure as per the Act and the Scheme, to take necessary decision at the earliest and, if possible, within a period of three moths from today. Since this order is passed without issuing notice to Respondent Nos.3 to 34, their rights and contentions before Respondent No.1 are kept open.

(SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)