usj IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.677 OF 2006 PETITION NO.677 OF 2006 PETITION NO.677 OF 2006 Hindustan Lever Employee’s Union ..Petitioner V/s. Security Guards Board for Greater Bombay and Thane District & Ors. ..Respondents ..... Ms. Jane Cox for the Petitoner Ms. Lata Desai for Respondent No.1 Mr. P.K. Rele, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.P. Rele i/by Piyush Shah for the Respondent No.2 ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM : SHRI J.N.PATEL & : SHRI J.N.PATEL & : SHRI J.N.PATEL & SHRI SHRI SHRI K.K.TATED, JJ. K.K.TATED, JJ. K.K.TATED, JJ. DATE DATE DATE :20TH JANUARY, 2009 :20TH JANUARY, 2009 :20TH JANUARY, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. 3. Advocate appearing for respondent waives service. By consent, matter is taken on board for final hearing. 4. The present petition is filed by the petitioner for a writ of mandamus, order or direction, to direct : 2 : the respondent No.1 to transfer the accumulated Provident fund balances, including interest accrued thereon, of the workmen at Exhibit ’A’ lying with the respondent No.1 and as deposited upto 30th June, 2001 to the new Provident fund accounts of the said workmen in the Provident fund of the respondent No.2 company administered by the respondent No.3 Trust. 5. The petitioner submitted that the security guards listed at Exh.A have been working in the establishments of the respondent No.2 company in Mumbai since the year 1982. On 28th February, 1997, in the complaint of unfair labour practices filed by the petitioner under the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 being complaint (ULP) No.625 of 1987 the Industrial Court allowed the complaint and directed the respondent No.2 company to classify the workmen as permanent workmen of the company and grant them wages, privileges and benefits as are applicable to the other watchmen from the date of the filing of the complaint. The said order confirmed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by Judgment and Order dated 24th January, 2001 in Writ Petition No.480 of 1987 and same was upheld by the Division Bench in Appeal No.174 of 2001 by order dated 27th February, 2001. Thereafter, the same was carried : 3 : to the Supreme Court by SLP (Civil) No.8713 of 2001 which is also dismissed on 9th July, 2001. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 company implemented the said orders and paid the workers arrears of wages and benefits w.e.f. 1st July, 1987. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that until 30th June, 2001, the wages of the workmen, including Provident Fund and gratuity contribution by way of levy, were remitted by the respondent No.2 company to the respondent No.1 Board and the Company paid the wages of the workmen directly and made each workmen a member of the company’s Provident Fund having been granted exemption under Section 17 of the Provident Fund Act, 1952 to operate its own Provident Fund / Pension Scheme, which is administered by the respondent No.3 trust. It is the case of the petitioner that the workmen had been shown by the respondent company as employed through the respondent No.1 Board from 1987. Accordingly, from 1987 until the implementation of the order of the Industrial Court, Mumbai, the wages and benefits of the workmen were deposited by the respondent company to the respondent No.1 Board which disburse the same to the workmen. These deposited amounts included the contribution of the workmen and the respondent No.2 : 4 : Company for Provident Fund, and the contribution of the company for gratuity of the workmen. As per Section 3 (2) (j) of the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981, r/w clause 5(xi) of the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 2002, the respondent No.1 Board has constituted a Provident Fund for registered security guards and it was into this fund that the contributions of the workmen and the respondent No.2 company were deposited. These facts were not disputed by the respondent No.1 Board. 7. Further it is the case of the petitioner that subsequent to the workmen being declared to be the permanent employees of the respondent No.2 company, the petitioner approached the respondent No.1 board on many occasions, requesting it to transfer the Provident Fund and gratuity accumulations lying with the Board in the name of the concerned workmen to the Respondent No.2 company. Those letters are annexed to the petition as Exh."B" and "C". Even the respondent No.2 company addressed a letter to the respondent Board (Exh."D") to the petition requesting the board to transfer the accumulated Provident fund balances of the workmen lying with the Board to their new Provident fund accounts with : 5 : the Company’s Provident Fund scheme. Again on 13th May, 2005, the claim was recorded by the respondent Company. In reply to the said correspondence, the respondent Board addressed a letter dated 4th June, 2005 to the respondent No.2 company stating that the workmen had been de-registered from the pool maintained by the Board and the Security guards are required to make application for Final Legal Dues alongwith bank account number, bank address code No. and identity card issued by the board, so as to calculate their Final Dues, which will be sent to them. 8. Ms. Lata Desai, Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 Board makes a statement that the board has already transferred the said amount on 17th April, 2008 to the petitioners’ account with the respondent No.2 company. The learned Advocate Mr. P.K. Rele appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and advocate appearing for petitioner confirms these facts. In view of the above, no further orders / directions are required in the present petition. 9. The petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. : 6 : (J.N. (J.N. (J.N. Patel, J.) Patel, J.) Patel, J.) (K.K. (K.K. (K.K. Tated, J.) Tated, J.) Tated, J.)