1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.921 of 2008 Tops Security and Detective Services Ltd. Petitioner Vs. Ravindra Arote Respondent Mr.B.K.Ashok i/b. M/s.Beekay Legal for petitioner. Mr.A.K.Jalisatgi for resp.no.1. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. February 11, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Ashok,the learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondent no.2 be deleted forthwith. 2. The respondent - employee had approached the Labour Court and filed Complaint (ULP) No.354 of 2001 alleging that he was illegally terminated from service from 21/6/2001 by the present petitioners, the petitioner no.1 being the employer. It was pointed out that he was working as a security guard with the present petitioners for about four years and his last drawn salary was Rs.1750/- per month. He was sick from 12/6/2001 to 20/6/2001 and on the next date he reported for duty on 21/6/2001 along with the 2 leave application and the medical certificate and the respondent no.1 was allegedly informed that his services were not required and he was called upon to submit his resignation. When the complainant refused to submit such a resignation, he was under oral orders removed from service. 3. The petitioners did not appear in spite of the Court’s notice and, therefore, complaint came to be allowed ex-parte on 15/7/2002. An application was moved by the petitioners for setting aside the ex-parte order and the same was allowed. The petitioners filed Written Statement at Exhibit 11 before the Labour Court and stated that the complainant was a habitual absentee case and in view of the nature of duties attached to the post, it was necessary to have regular and dedicated employees. The complainant used to remain absent from time to time and he had himself abandoned the service. 4. The Labour Court after hearing both the parties allowed the complaint by its judgment and order dated 31/8/2005 and directed to give continuity of service with 75 per cent backwages from 21/6/2001 to 31/3/2003 with other legal benefits. The said 3 order was challenged in Revision Application (ULP) No.5 of 2007 and the revision came to be dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision of this Court (D.B.) in the case of Krantikari Suraksha Rakshak Sanghatana Vs. S.V. Naik & ors. [1993 II LLJ 1145] [1993 II LLJ 1145] [1993 II LLJ 1145] and submitted that a contract labour engaged by a contractor cannot file a complaint of unfair labour practice against the contractor and such a complainant will have to seek remedy under the Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981. It appears that the view taken by this Court in the case of Krantikari Suraksha Rakshak Sanghatana (Supra) has held that the security guard employed through contractor cannot file a complaint of unfair labour practice against the principal employer and, therefore, the ratio laid down in the said case does not support the submissions made by the learned counsel before this Court. 6. The Labour Court noted that the complainant was the employee of the contractor i.e. the respondent no.1 - security agency and he had put in more than four years service. No show cause notice 4 was issued right from 12/6/2001 till January 2003 regarding the unauthorised absence of the complainant from duty. The complainant came out with a specific case that on 21/6/2001 when he reported to duty along with the medical certificate, he was not allowed to report to duty and by oral orders he was informed that he was not required. By an ex-parte order dated 12/6/2002 the Labour Court had directed the employer to allow the complainant to report for duty and the said order was not obeyed and consequently the complainant had approached the Labour Court with a criminal complaint under Section 48 of the MRTU & PULP Act. The Labour Court also noted that the present petitioners had reinstated the respondent in February 2003 and, therefore, the relief was moulded and restricted only upto 31st January 2003. The learned Member of the Industrial Court after having considered the record did not find that the Labour Court had committed any error apparent on the face of the record either on the point of facts or on the point of law. 7. I am, therefore, satisfied that the concurrent view taken by both the Courts below cannot be termed as perverse or patently erroneous so as to cause 5 interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition is rejected summarily. (B.H.MARL