[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Maharashtra Rajya Suraksha Rakshak And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Dept And ... on 10 April, 2026
Author: R.I. Chagla
Bench: R.I. Chagla
2026:BHC-AS:17344-DB
RJ-WP 13340.2025.doc
Kavita S.J.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.13340 OF 2025
Maharashtra Rajya Suraksha Rakshak & ...Petitioner
General Kamgar Union
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors., ...Respondents
----------
Mr. Avinash Belge for Petitioner.
M.M. Pabale, AGP for State / Respondent No.1.
Mr. Amardev J. Uniyal a/w B.L.Mangale for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Amrut Joshi a/w Ms. Kajal Gupta, Ms. Shweta Singh, S.D. Shetty,
Dheer Sampat, Mr. Yazad Udwadia i/b M.V. Kini & Co. for Respondent
Nos. 3 & 4 (IIT Bombay).
----------
CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA AND
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 26th MARCH, 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : 10th APRIL, 2026.
JUDGMENT:
(Per R.I. Chagla, J.)
1. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner - Maharashtra Rajya
Suraksha Rakshak and General Kamgar Union has on behalf of its
KAVITA
SUSHIL
JADHAV
Security Guard members, totaling 81 Security Guards, a list of which
has been annexed at Exhibit-A to the Petition, sought quashing and
RJ-WP 13340.2025.doc
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
RJ-WP 13340.2025.doc
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. 10th 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 10th October 2025, the service of Security Guards working
with Respondent No.3 - IIT will be terminated.
RJ-WP 13340.2025.doc
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 8th 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
4th September, 2025 which had not met with any response, carried
out inspection of the premises of Respondent No.3 - IIT and it was
observed that Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 - IIT are engaging Private
RJ-WP 13340.2025.doc
Security Guards through M/s Checkmate Facility & Electronic
Solution Private Limited.
11. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned Letters
dated 11th August, 2025 and 25th August, 2025 issued by Respondent
No.4, has filed the present Petition invoking the writ jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
12. There is a preliminary objection which has been raised
by Mr. Amrut Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 3
and 4 to the maintainability of the present Petition. He has submitted
that the Petitioner - Union has no privity of contract and/or its
members/Security Guards have no privity of contract with
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 - IIT. He has submitted that at the highest
the relationship of IIT is with the Respondent No.2 - Board and it is
the Respondent No.2 - Board who at all could have filed this Writ
Petition challenging Respondent Nos.3 & 4 - IIT's decision to
terminate their contract.
13. Mr. Joshi has submitted that it is for the Respondent
No.2 - Board to re-deploy the Security Guards who are the members
of the Petitioner - Union to another factory or establishment in
RJ-WP 13340.2025.doc
accordance with the said Scheme. He has submitted that by the
present Petition, the Petitioner - Union is effectively seeking to
compel IIT to continue its members/Security Guards listed at Exhibit-
A to the Petition and thereby, indirectly seeking a relief equivalent to
permanent attachment of those Guards to IIT which is contrary to the
ratio of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Krantikari Suraksha
Rakshak Sanghatana Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited1. In that
case, the Supreme Court held that the pool guards allotted by the
Board do not become direct and regular employees of the principal
employer and that the Board retains control, including powers to
transfer and re-deploy the Guards among different employers.
14. Mr. Joshi has also made submissions on the Respondent
No.3 - IIT being neither an "establishment" nor a "factory" within the
meaning of the said Act and the Scheme thereunder. He has referred
to the definition of "establishment" under the said Act which adopts
the definition of "establishment" from Section 2(8) of the Bombay
Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. He has submitted that Section
2(8) defines "establishment" to mean shops, commercial
establishments, residential hotels, restaurants and eating houses,
1 (2008)10 SCC 166
RJ-WP 13340.2025.doc
theaters and places of public amusement or entertainment. These
categories clearly indicate that the definition is intended to govern
commercial or business establishments, or places of public
amusement / entertainment, and not Central statutory academic
institutions like IIT Bombay.
15. Mr. Joshi has further submitted that the expression "such
other establishment" in the definition is to be construed ejusdem
generis with the specific categories mentioned above. He has relied
upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Amarchandra
Chakraborty Vs. Collector of Excise, Tripura 2 which held that where
general words follow specific words forming a distinct genus, the
general words must be confined to that genus.
16. Mr. Joshi has submitted that applying this doctrine,
institutions such as IIT which is a Central autonomous academic and
research body under the Institutes of Technology Act, 1961 cannot be
equated with shops, commercial establishments or places of public
amusement. IIT therefore falls outside the statutory concept of
"establishment" contemplated by the said Act and the Bombay Shops
and Establishments Act.
2 (1972) 2 SCC 442
RJ-WP 13340.2025.doc
17. Mr. Joshi has submitted that the present controversy is
directly guided by the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in
Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshak Aghadi Vs. Maharashtra Film, Stage
and Culture Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. 3. He has submitted
that the Division Bench in the said decision had considered a similar
case as the present, where the Petitioner - Union sought a direction
compelling the Respondent establishment to continue Security
Guards supplied through the Security Guards Board. The Respondent
establishment as the present Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 - IIT decided to
engage security personnel supplied by the Maharashtra State Security
Corporation under the Maharashtra State Security Corporation Act,
2010. This Court had in these circumstances noted that the Petitioner
was unable to point out any statutory provision requiring the
establishment to always employ Security Guards through the Board.
The Division Bench had found no error in the stand taken by the
establishment of engaging Security Guards through Maharashtra
State Security Corporation ("MSSC") and not through the Board. The
Division Bench further recorded that if the Board had an allegation
regarding the establishment appointing private Security Guards, then
the Board had its remedies to take appropriate action in accordance
3 Decision dated 21st November, 2018 in Writ Petition No.12288 of 2016
RJ-WP 13340.2025.doc
with law.
18. Mr. Joshi has further submitted that Respondent No.2 -
Board has not independently challenged the impugned Termination
Letters dated 11th August, 2025 and 25th August, 2025 which had
been issued by Respondent Nos.3 and 4 - IIT taking a policy decision
to secure its campus through the MSSC under the Maharashtra State
Security Corporation Act, 2010 and thereby terminating the
Respondent No.2 - Board's arrangement. He has submitted that the
ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench squarely supports
Respondent Nos.3 and 4 - IIT's stand.
19. Mr. Joshi has submitted that Respondent No.3 - IIT
though not being an establishment and governed under the said Act
voluntarily registered itself and hence, it does not become irrevocably
and perpetually bound to employ Security Guards from the
Respondent No.2 - Board.
20. Mr. Joshi has further submitted that the Security Guards
remain within the Respondent No.2 - Board's statutory scheme and
can be re-deployed to any other establishment or factory by the
Board. They do not possess any vested right to be deployed at IIT in
RJ-WP 13340.2025.doc
particular, and their statutory protections under the 1981 Act are
unaffected by IIT's decision to disengage from the Board
arrangement.
21. Mr. Avinash Belge, learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner - Union supported by Mr. Uniyal, learned Counsel
appearing for Respondent No.2 - Board have placed reliance upon
orders passed by this Court in Writ Petitions which have been filed by
the Petitioner - Union representing its members / Security Guards.
This include Writ Petitions filed by Maharashtra Rajya Suraksha
Rakshak & General Kamgar Union being Writ Petition No.8262 of
2023 and Pune District Suraksha Rakshak and General Kamgar Union
being Writ Petition No.14769 of 2022.
22. They have also relied upon the Writ Petition filed by
Motherson Automative Technologies and Engineering Vs. Pune
District Security Guard Board, Pune and Ors. in Writ Petition (St.)
No.30907 of 2022, wherein the Division Bench of this Court had
considered the challenge of the Petitioner to the order passed by
Respondent No.2 allotting/deploying 18 Security Guards. It was the
contention of the Petitioner that the Exemption Application filed by
RJ-WP 13340.2025.doc
Respondent No.1 therein seeking exemption, was pending with the
Board since 2016. This Court had considered the Petitioner to be
registered with the Board and held that Petitioner cannot employ
Security Guards through the Contractor. In light of that, till the
Exemption Application was decided the Petitioner had to employ the
Security Guards allotted by the Board. The Division Bench allowed
the Respondent - Board to allot/deploy 11 Security Guards at the
Petitioner's establishment and to assess the requirement of Security
Guards and pass further orders with regard to deployment. The
Respondent - Board was also directed to consider the application of
the Petitioner to pay assessment of dues. Accordingly, the Writ
Petition had been disposed of by directing that depending upon the
decision taken on the Exemption Application, parties may take
further steps. The Application for Exemption was directed to be
decided expeditiously.
23. Mr. Belge has in context of the preliminary objection
raised on behalf of Respondent Nos.3 and 4 - IIT has submitted that
the Petitioner - Union representing its members/Security Guards,
being 81 in number, has filed the present Petition claiming protection
of their rights under the said Act and Scheme. He has submitted that
RJ-WP 13340.2025.doc
by the impugned letters issued by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 - IIT the
Security Guards/members of the Petitioner - Union are being
deprived of their benefits under the said Act and Scheme, which have
been enacted for securing the services of the Security Guards and to
provide better service conditions to them. They have sought
implementation of the said Act and Scheme particularly since
Respondent No.3 - IIT has been registered as a principal employer
under the said Act and there is a statutory obligation of Respondent
Nos. 3 and 4 - IIT to engage Security Guards allotted to them by the
Respondent No.2 - Board.
24. Mr. Belge has submitted that there is a clear violation of
the said Act by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 employing Private Security
Guards viz. M/s Checkmate Facility & Electronic Solution Private
Limited which is contrary to the said Act as well as Clause 25(2) of
the Scheme framed under the said Act. He has submitted that the
present Writ Petition is maintainable as the impugned letters of
termination issued by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 - IIT are in violation
of the fundamental rights of the Security Guards/members of the
Petitioner - Union to employment and/or carrying on of their
livelihood.
RJ-WP 13340.2025.doc
25. There have been further submissions made by Mr. Belge
and Mr. Uniyal on the said Act and the Maharashtra State Security
Corporation Act, 2010 operating in completely different and clearly
discernible fields and co-existing harmoniously. They have placed
reliance upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Security
Association of India and Anr., Vs. Union of India and Ors .,4 which has
upheld the said Act by holding that the said Act being a State Act
occupies a distinct field from the Central Act viz. the Private Security
Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005. Further, the said Act has been held
to be not violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution as the
restrictions imposed by the said Act are found to be reasonable
restrictions envisioned by the Constitution and they protect the rights
and ensure the welfare of private security agencies by means of
Section 23 and relevant provisions of the said Scheme. The principal
employer is prohibited from taking Private Security Guards from
security agencies and that exemption could be asked only in respect
of Private Security Guards provided that the three conditions viz.
firstly that they are employed by the agency or agent; secondly they
are deployed by that concerned agency in a factory or establishment
and thirdly in the opinion of the State Government, all such Security
4 AIR 2014 SC 3812
RJ-WP 13340.2025.doc
Guards or such class or classes of Security Guards at the time of
seeking exemption are in the enjoyment of benefits which on the
whole are not less favourable to such Security Guards than the
benefits provided by or under the said Act or any Scheme made
thereunder. The Supreme Court has further held that it was only a
one time exercise for seeking exemption of Private Security Guards
who were employed by the Agency and deployed in factory or
establishment.
26. Mr. Belge and Mr. Uniyal have also dealt with the
submission of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 that IIT does not fall within
the definition of establishment under the said Act which adopts the
definition of "establishment" from Section 2(8) of the Bombay Shops
and Establishments Act, 1948. They have submitted that IIT is an
"establishment" as defined under Section 2(8) of the Maharashtra
Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and
Conditions of Service) Act, 2017. The very fact that "Establishments"
pertaining to any kind of educational activities are exempted under
Section 3 (9) of the Maharashtra Shops and Establishment Act, 1948
shows that Respondent No.3 (which is an educational institution) is
required to be exempted because in the first place it is covered in the
RJ-WP 13340.2025.doc
definition of "Establishment". Had it not been covered under the
definition of "Establishment" under Section 2(8) of the Maharashtra
Shops and Establishment Act, there would be no need for such
exemption. They have submitted that the exemption under Section
3(9) of the Maharashtra Shops and Establishment Act is only for the
purpose of Maharashtra Shops and Establishment Act and cannot be
construed as exemption under the said Act.
27. Mr. Belge and Mr. Uniyal have further submitted that the
said Act specially provided for an exemption under Section 23 thereof
and the State Government has not granted any such exemption in
respect of the educational institution.
28. They have placed reliance upon the Judgment of the
Supreme Court in B.P. Hira Works Vs. C.M. Pradhan 5 which holds
that inclusion of any such office and institution in Column II of
Schedule II of the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act, 1948 i.e.
establishments which are granted exemption under Section 4 thereof
must be and are establishments under Section 2(8) of the Act.
29. They have accordingly submitted that the arguments of
5 1959 SCC OnLine SC 158
RJ-WP 13340.2025.doc
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 do not hold any water and deserve to be
rejected.
30. We have considered the submissions. Although there
have been submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties
on the applicability of the said Act and the said Scheme to IIT and the
effect of registration of IIT under the said Act, it would not be
necessary to determine these issues, having been satisfied with the
preliminary objections on maintainability of the Petition filed by the
Petitioner - Union instead of the Respondent No.2 - Board.
31. We find much merit in the submission of Respondent
Nos. 3 and 4 - IIT that the present Petition filed by the Petitioner -
Union representing its members / Security Guards is not
maintainable as there is no privity of the Union and/or its
members/Security Guards with Respondent No.3. There is no
employer - employee relationship between them. At the highest
there is privity between Respondent No.2 - Board and Respondent
No.3. Respondent No.2 - Board has chosen not to come forward and
file the Petition inspite of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 - IIT terminating
their contract with them.
RJ-WP 13340.2025.doc
32. It is well settled that Security Guards deployed through
the Respondent No.2 - Board do not become employees of the
principal employer. The Supreme Court in Krantikari Suraksha
Rakshak Sanghatana Vs. BSNL (supra) has held that pool guards
allotted by the Board do not become direct and regular employees of
the principal employer and that the Board retains control, including
powers to transfer and re-deploy the Guards among different
employers.
33. It is always open for the Respondent No.2 - Board to re-
deploy the Security Guards to any other factory or establishment in
accordance with the said Scheme. The Guards have no vested right
in being retained with Respondent Nos.3 and 4 - IIT and the
Petitioner - Union cannot compel IIT to continue the Security
Guards/members of the Petitioner - Union listed at Exhibit-A to the
Petition. There can be no permanent attachment of those Security
Guards to IIT. The present Petition by indirectly asking for such relief
is contrary to the ratio of Krantikari Suraksha Rakshak Sanghatana
Vs. BSNL (supra).
34. We are accordingly of the view that the present Writ
RJ-WP 13340.2025.doc
Petition filed by the Petitioner - Union is thoroughly misconceived
apart from not being maintainable. If at all, it was for the Respondent
No.2 - Board to have come forward and filed the Petition impugning
the termination of their service by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 - IIT.
There is no deprivation of any of the benefits of the Security Guards/
members of the Petitioner - Union under the said Act and Scheme,
particularly when Respondent No.2 - Board can always re-deploy
these Security Guards at any other establishment.
35. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed as not being
maintainable. There shall be no orders as to costs.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [R.I. CHAGLA, J.]
36. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has
sought stay of this Judgment and Order for the Petitioner to avail of
Appellate remedy.
37. Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent
Nos. 3 & 4 - IIT has opposed granting of stay of this Judgment and
RJ-WP 13340.2025.doc
Order on the ground that prior to the interim order being passed by
this Court, Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 - IIT have already deployed
Security Guards from MSSC.
38. Considering that there has been an interim order which
is in operation, for some time, the Application for stay of this
Judgment for a period of four weeks is granted. We make it clear that
the position prior to grant of interim order is not being disturbed.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [R.I. CHAGLA, J.]
