SECURITY GUARDS BOARD FOR GREATER BOMBAY & THANA DISTT. ETC. versus SECURITY & PERSONNEL SERVICE PVT. LTD. & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 19 · Decided: 28-04-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

)_ 
-
J... 
'( 
SECURITY GUARDS BOARD FOR GREATER 
BOMBAY & THANA DISTT. ETC. 
v. 
SECURITY & PERSONNEL SERVICE PVT. LTD. 
& ORS. ETC. 
APRIL 28, 1987 
(0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND V. KHALID, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment 
and Welfare) Act, 1981: s. 23 read with ss. 22 and 1(4)-Exemption 
from Act-Denial of to security agencies or agents-Validity of-
C 
Government whether required to state reasons. 
Administrative Law: 
Exemption from provisions of a statute-Refusal of-Govern-
ment whether to state reasons. 
D 
Section 1(4) of the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regula-
tion of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 makes the provisions of the 
Act applicable to security guards who were not direct and regular 
employees of the factory or the establishment. A 'security guard' is 
defined in s. 2(10) as a person who is engaged or is to be engaged E 
through any agency or an agent to do security work. Section 3 
empowers the State Government to make schemes to provide for the 
registration of employers and security guards and the terms and condl-
tions of employment of registered security guards and their general 
welfare. Section 22 provides for preservation of existing rights and 
privileges of security guards if they are more favourable to them than F 
those under the Act. Section 23 empowers the State Government to 
exempt security guards from the operation of the provisions of the Act 
or any scheme made thereunder. 
The Security Guards Board was constituted under s. 6 of the Act 
and the Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and G 
Welfare) Scheme, 1981 was also made to give effect to the Act. 
The respondents' applications for exemption from the provisions 
of the Act having been rejected by the State Government they filed writ 
petitions before the High Court which were dismissed by a Single 
Judge. 
H 
19 
-
-
..
20 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
On appeal, the Division Bench took the view that the applications 
B 
c 
D 
, 
bad been rejected as a result of the policy decision not to grant exeinp· 
tlon to any security agency and that this was wrong, that each applica· 
tion for exemption had to he considered on its own merits and so dis· 
posed of, and consequently directed the Government to consider the 
applications afresh. 
In these appeals, it was contended for the appellant Securify 
Guards Board that s. 23 of the Act did not contemplate the grant of 
exemption in favour of a security agency, on which ground alone the 
applications were liable to he rejected, and that the applications were 
rejected after consideration on merits and not on the basi~ of any policy 
decision. For the respondents it was argued that ifs. 23 was read in the 
light of s. 22 it would follow that an agency could ask for exemption 
from the operation of the Act, that wherever the conditions of service 
were better than those proposed under the scheme the Government was 
under a duty to grant exemption, and that the Act did not contemplate 
the abolition of the agency system as such or termination of the contract 
of employment between the agency and the security guards, or for the 
transfer of the services of the security guards from the employment of 
the agency to that of the factory or establishment. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court, 
E 
HELD: 1. The orders of the State Government refusing to grant 
exemption to the respondents from the operation of the provisions of the 
Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and 
Welfare) Act, 1981 do not call for any interference. [32GH] 
2. Section 23 of the Act read with s. 1(4) and the definition of 
F 
'security guard' in s. 2(10) makes it apparent that the exemption is in 
regard to security guards employed in any factory or establishment or 
in any class or classes of factories or establishments and not in respect of 
an agency or an agent: All security guards employed in a factory may he 
exempted or security guards of a particular grade or doing a particular 
type of work in the factory may he exempted. Again, all security guards 
G 
employed in a class of factories, say textile mills, may be exempted. All 
~ 
security guards in textile mills doing a particular type of work or draw· 
ing a particular scale of pay may be exempted. The correlationship of 
the security guards or classes of security guards who may he exempted 
from the operation orthe Act is to the factory or establishment or class 
or 

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