MAHARASHTRA RAJYA SURAKSHA RAKSHAK AND GENERAL KAMGAR UNION v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE DEPT AND ORS
Maintainability of Writ Petitions by Unions; Lack of Privity Between Security Guards Allotted by Statutory Boards and Principal Employers.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:17344-DB
Decision Date: 10-04-2026
List of Laws
The Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981; The Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 2002; The Maharashtra Shops and Establishments Act, 1948; The Maharashtra State Security Corporation Act, 2010; Constitution of India, Article 226
- Facts: The Petitioner, a labor union representing 81 security guards, challenged termination letters issued by the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay (IIT). The guards had been allotted to IIT by the Maharashtra State Security Guards Board. IIT terminated the arrangement to engage security personnel from the Maharashtra State Security Corporation (MSSC). The Union contended that this termination violated the Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981, and deprived the guards of their livelihood. Conversely, IIT argued it was not an "establishment" under the Act and that no privity of contract existed between the institute and the individual guards.
- Procedural Posture: The Petitioner approached the Bombay High Court by filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the termination letters and a direction to continue the guards' services at IIT.
- Issue: Is a Writ Petition filed by a Labor Union maintainable against a principal employer for the termination of services of security guards allotted by the Security Guards Board?
- Holding: No, the Writ Petition is not maintainable.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that there is no employer-employee relationship or privity of contract between the security guards and the principal employer (IIT). Following the precedent in Krantikari Suraksha Rakshak Sanghatana Vs. BSNL, the Court held that pool guards allotted by the Board do not become direct employees of the principal employer; the Board retains control and the power to re-deploy them. Since the Board is the statutory authority managing the guards, it was the Board's prerogative to challenge the termination, which it chose not to do. Furthermore, the guards have no vested right to be perpetually attached to a specific establishment, as they can be re-deployed elsewhere by the Board.
🔒 For Members Only