1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1102 OF 2009 H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd. & Ors. ...Petitioners. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.K.P.Anilkumar, adv. For the Petitioners. Ms. Lata Desai i/by Ms.Pallavi Divekar, advs. For the Respondent No.1. Shri R.D.Suvarna, adv. for the Respondent No.3. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : JUNE 22, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. On a complaint filed by the Inspector Security Guards Board for Gr. Bombay and Thane District, Criminal Case No.5774/SS of 2007 came to be registered against three accused persons, who are the petitioners before this Court. Allegation is that petitioner no.1 was found to engage private security guards and it, as principal employer had failed to register itself with the Board as per the provisions of Clause 13(1)(c) of the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 2002 which requires every principal employer, who had to engage private security guards before the commencement of Amendment Scheme, 2005 shall get himself registered with the Board within 15 days 2 from the date of commencement of the said scheme. Petitioner nos.2 and 3 are the concerned responsible officers of the petitioner no.1. Therefore, they are liable to be penalised under the provisions of Clause 42 of the said scheme of 2002. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that some of the employer agencies providing security guards and some others had filed Writ Petition No.1084/07 through their association being Security Association of India. In that matter on 26th March, 2008, Division Bench of this Court had directed the Government to take decision on the applications filed by the petitioners for exemption, within three months. Court had also directed that in the mean time, board should not take any coercive action against the petitioners, whose applications were pending with the State Government. The learned counsel contends that the employer agency through which the present petitioners had engaged security guards are members of the Security Association of India. He also contends that on 25th November, 2008, the Government of Maharashtra had granted exemption to the guards and, therefore, petitioners can not be prosecuted. 3 The learned counsel for the respondent/Board contends that the said order passed by the High Court does not come to the rescue to 3 the present petitioners in view of specific provision of Clause 13(1)(a) of the Scheme. According to her, even when the guards, who were granted exemption, are engaged still the principal employer is required to get itself registered. 4 On perusal of the clause 13(1)(a) of the Scheme, it appears that every principal employer, who engages registered security guards of the board or security guards of the employer agencies, whose security guards are granted exemption by the Government, in his establishment, shall get himself registered with the board, by applying in the form devised by it. Sub clause (c) provides that every principal employer who had engaged private security guards before the commencement of the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) (Amendment) Scheme 2005 shall get himself registered with the Board, by applying in the form devised by the Board, within 15 days from the date of commencement of the said scheme. Proviso to sub- clause (c) makes it clear that an employer in any establishment coming into existence after the commencement of the said scheme shall apply for registration within a period of one month from the date of commencement of his business. On careful perusal of these provisions, it is abundantly clear that every principal employer is required to get 4 himself registered with the board irrespective of the fact whether he engages registered security guards of the board or security guards of the employer agencies, whose security guards are granted exemption. Therefore, grant of exemption from the provisions of the scheme to the guards does not grant exemption to the principal employer from getting himself registered with the board. It is possible that the security guards, who had been granted exemption, will not be covered under the provisions of the scheme, still to monitor and co-ordinate proper control on the employment of such private security guards and for their welfare, it has been provided that the principal employer, who engaged such guards, should get himself registered under the clause 13(1). In view of this provision, I do not find any fault with the complaint lodged by the board. As far as factual parts are concerned, this Court need not go into the same, that can be looked into by the trial Court. The order dated 26th March, 2008 in Writ Petition No.1804/07 directed board not to take coercive action against the petitioners, whose applications for exemptions were pending before the State Government. In my considered opinion, that direction has no relevance as far as registration of the principal employer is concerned. Therefore, there is no substance in the present petition. 5 5 In the result, petition stands dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)