Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. The genesis of the Security Guards Act has been exhaustively set out in several judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court and especially by SAWANT J. (as his Lordship then was) in the case of Tradesvel Security v. State of Maharashtra, 1982 84 BLR 608 at page 623. It is unnecessary, therefore, to set out the same in detail again. A brief reference to the genesis is sufficient.

10. The demand for abolishing contract labour led to the enactment of the Contract Labour Act. However, certain occupations continued to escape the provisions of the Contract Labour Act as a result whereof the State of Maharashtra enacted the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the Mathadi Act"), which came into force on June 13, 1969. The security guards who perform the duties of watch and ward did not fall within the provisions of the Mathadi Act. The trade union of the security guards, viz., Maharashtra Rajya Suraksha Rakshak and General Kamgar Union, Bombay, made representations to the State Government demanding the constitution of a separate Board on the lines of the Mathadi Board constituted under the Mathadi Act for ensuring regular employment and humane service conditions for security guards employed in establishments in Greater Bombay and Thane industrial complexes. The survey conducted by the State Government disclosed that the terms and conditions of employment of security guards engaged by establishments through agencies were far inferior to those of security guards employed directly by such establishments. The survey also noted unscrupulous and unfair dealings on the part of some of the agencies. Finding it necessary to stop exploitation of the unprotected security guards and to provide them with better service conditions, it was recommended that a notification be issued under the Mathadi Act to provide the security guards with the same facilities as the workers covered by the Mathadi Act. A non-official Bill introduced by a Member of the Legislative Council to cover security guards under the Mathadi Act was opposed by the State Government at that time because the Government was considering issuing a notification under the Contract Labour Act. It may be noted at this stage that a notification issued under the Contract Labour Act to abolish the contract labour system amongst security guards was struck down by this Court on the ground that the same was not a speaking order.

60. We must mention that through inadvertence the sentence referring to the submission is incomplete and reads as under:

"Ms. Mhatre contends that sub silentio this case decides that employees allotted by statutory Boards like the Mathadi Board (it is not in dispute that the provisions of the Private Security Guards Act and the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 and the Schemes made for employment of registered employees under both the statutes are substantially similar)."

76. Clause 3 of the Statement of Objects and Reasons is relevant and reads as under:

"In order to ensure that the security guards in factories and establishments were not exploited and for making better provisions for their terms and conditions of employment and welfare, through the establishment of a separate representative Board therefore, it was considered necessary to enact a special law immediately, on the lines of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969. It would then be possible in due course to make recruitment of these security guards through the Board only."

98. Ms. Desai, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Board, invited our attention to a judgment of D.R. dHANUKA J. (as his Lordship then was) in the case of Hussain Mithu Mhasvadkar v. Bombay Iron and Steel Board, 1990 II CLR 860. The learned single judge held that the Board under the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the Mathadi Act"), is a statutory authority discharging regal functions of the State and hence the Board is not an industry. The provisions of the Mathadi Act are similar to those of the Security Guards Act. In view of what we have held it is not necessary for us to consider whether the Board is or is not a contractor on the basis that it discharges the regal functions of the State.