KRANTIKARI SURAKSHA RAKSHAK SANGHATANA versus BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. AND ORS .

Citation: [2008] 12 S.C.R. 649 · Decided: 25-08-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 12 S.C.R. 649 
.... 
~ 
KRANTIKARI SURAKSHA RAKSHAK SANGHATANA 
A 
v. 
... 
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. AND ORS . 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4473-74 of 2002) 
AUGUST 25, 2008 
B 
~ 
~ 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA 
AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of 
Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981; Ss. 1 ( 4), (2), 19, 20 & 21 c 
and Schem(1s 1981 and 2002 made thereunder: 
Employer-employee relationship -
Security Guards 
Board - Power to recruit, select, appoint, allot, promote, 
terminate, recall, re-allot or transfer-· Held: Person who has-
ultimate control over the affairs of the factory/establishment D 
-..,f, 
where security guard deployed is employer/principal employer 
- 1981 Act is a complete code - Board has been vested with 
) 
. all powers to regulate all aspects of employment/service 
conditions of private security guards - Only for those service 
conditions not regulated by the Act/Scheme, the principal E 
employer could be treated as employer of security guards -
In terms of s. 1 ( 4) of the Act, security guards cannot be said to 
be in regular/direct employment of the principal employer -
Under 1981 and 2002 Schemes, power to supervise, control, 
disciplinary action, termination vested with the Board - Hence, 
F 
~ 
High Court rightly concluding the Board as the employer for 
.. 
Security Guards . 
Words and Phrases: 
'employer' - Meaning of in the context of s. 2(3) of the G 
-#-
Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of 
Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981. 
The question which arose for consideration in these 
appeals was as to whether after allotment of guards to a 
649 
H 
650 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 12 S.C.R. 
A principal e~ployer, the Security Guard Board constituted 
under the Maharas.htra Private Security Guards 
(Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act,. 1981 loses 
the power to recall, re-allot or transfer such guard on the 
ground that they become an employee of the principal 
B employer. 
Appellants-Union contended that under the 
Maharashtra Private Security Guards· (Regulation of 
Employment and Welfare) Act and the Scheme framed 
thereunder the security guards, on allotment by the Board 
C to an employer/principal employer, become the 
employees of that Principal Employer; that the Board is 
nothing but a statutory recruitment/allotment body 
invest~d with certain powers to oversee the master-
servant relationship which exists between the guards and 
D the principal employers to whom they are allotted; that 
the mere fact that such power~ are given to a Board by· 
statute does not mean that the ·master servant relationship 
does not exist between the guards and the principal 
employers. 
E 
Respondents-employer 
submitted 
that 
the 
Maharashtra Private Security Guards Act and Scheme 
framed thereunder constitute a complete and self-
contained code;. that Security Guards who seek 
registration with the statutory. Board and are allotted to 
F different principal employers by the Board continue to be 
members of the "Pool" as defined in Clauses 4(f) and 4(g) 
of the 1981 Scheme which 1sctefined as the "Board Pool" 
. 
. 
in Clause 3(c) -of the 2002 Scheme and consequently 
continue to be subject to common seniority maintained 
G by the Board (Clause 16 of 1981 Scheme) and (Clause 15 
of 2002) Scheme; that the power to recruit, select, appoint, 
allot, promote, transfer, take disciplinary action, and 
terminate employment of the security guard in the "Pool" 
or "Board Pool" ·is vested exclusively in the statutory 
H Board; that the principal emriloyer has no power 
KRANTIKARI SURAKSHA RAKSHAK SANGHATANA v. 
651 
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. & ORS . 
..., ..,.,. 
whatsoever except to issue routine directions in the A 
course of day to day security work; that if guards were to 
become employees of the principal employer upon 
allotment, the entire Scheme would cease to apply to them 
instantly upon being allotted to a particular employer; 
and that in any event, all these arguments have time and B 
• 
again been considered and rejected by the Bombay High 
·t 
Court, and applying the principle of stare decisis and also 
the res judicata, the Judgments of the High Court which 
have held the field for the past 25 years ought to be upheld 
and affirmed. 
c 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Under Clause 3 of Section 2 of the 
Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of 
Employment and Welfare) Act, "employer" means the D 
-
p

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.