IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 26TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 16887 of 2009(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. M/S.SUHSHIV SECURITY SERVICES (PVT) LTD., ROOM NO.1, BLDG. NO.427/E, KOLAVELI SHOPPING CENTRE, SWARAJ NAGAR, KAKKANAD P.O., COCHIN, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SHRI. LT. CDR. N.C. SEKHARAN (RETD). 2. M.PADMANABHAN, S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR, ''PADMAM'', PATHAKKARA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.MR.K.MOHANAKANNAN MR.A.R.PRAVITHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TELECOMMUNICATIONS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NEW DELHI. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF RE- SETTLEMENT MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA WEST BLOCK 4, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI. 3. THE BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR CORPORATE OFFICE, 301, STATEMAN HOUSE, BHARATHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI 1. 4. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM KERALA CIRCLE BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033. W.P.(C) NO.16887/2009 5. THE GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., MALAPPURAM (SSA). 6. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF THE GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, MALAPPURAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.P.P.PADMALAYAN, C.G.C R3 TO R6 BY MR.C.S.RAMANATHAN,SC FOR BSNL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 18236 OF 2009 WPC NO. 18367 OF 2009 THE COURT ON 17/09/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.16887/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 29.11.2006 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS AND THE RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF REVISION OF WAGES. P3:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 22.12.08 SUBMITTED BY THE IST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH NOTICE AND DETAILS OF ARREARS OF WAGES DUE. P4:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 29.5.09 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 12.8.08 ISSUED BY the 4TH RESPONDENT. P6:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 12.8.08 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss V.GIRI, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = W.P.(C). Nos. 16887, 18236 & 18367 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of September 2009. JUDGMENT Some of the issues raised in these writ petitions are common. Therefore they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. I will refer to the individual facts involved in these writ petitions separately. W.P.(C).No.18236/2009 will be considered in the first instance. The petitioner provided security service coverage in different establishment of the first respondent Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). All the security personnel deployed by the petitioner are ex-servicemen. The petitioner’s agency is run by retired military officers. 2. The Government of India by Ext.P1 order introduced a scheme through the Director General of Resettlement (DGR) for engaging ex-servicemen as security guards and to enable retired military officers to run agencies engaging such security guards for exclusive allotment of security service coverage work in all Central Public Sector Undertakings. By Ext.P1(a) order dated 11.11.1994, the Government of India also directed the PSUs to engage all such security agencies. The public sector W.P.(C). Nos. 16887, 18236 & 18367 OF 2009 2 undertakings were directed not to engage other security agencies. Wages were to be paid as per the guidelines drawn up in this regard by the DGR. 3. It is seen that several of the DGR sponsored agencies had approached this Court in O.P.No.14702/2001 and connected cases inter alia complaining of violation of DGR guidelines by the BSNL and also by certain other Public Sector Undertakings. This Court by judgment dated 28.11.2003 held that agencies under the Government of India are bound to follow the guidelines issued by the ministry, in the matter of availing the service of the security personnel through DGR sponsored security agencies. 4. The wages to be paid to security personnel deployed by the DGR sponsored agency was also notified by the DGR. Consequently the wage structure was also revised from time to time as evidenced by Ext.P3 series. 5. Petitioner was sponsored by the DGR for security service coverage work under the first respondent as evidenced by Ext.P4 and an agreement for a two year period from 01.10.2004 to 30.09.2006 was also executed as evidenced by W.P.(C). Nos. 16887, 18236 & 18367 OF 2009 3 Ext.P4. Since the petitioners performance was satisfactory, the first respondent recommended that the petitioner’s tenure be extended for a further two years period with effect from 01.10.2004. But re-sponsorship and reallotment was not granted and the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C). No.31070/2006 for appropriate direction in the matter of reallotment and re-sponsorship. Petitioner continued to provide security service coverage in the establishment of the BSNL beyond 01.10.2006 on the strength of interim orders passed by this Court. The writ petition was allowed as per Ext.P5 judgment and affirmed by the Division Bench by Ext.P5(a) judgment. Petitioner intimated its willingness to act in furtherance of the judgment of this Court and execute an agreement. Subsequently agreement Ext.P7(a) was executed for a period from 01.11.2007 to 30.09.2008. It may be recalled at this juncture that the petitioner had continued to render security service coverage beyond the agreement period ending with 30.09.2006 on the strength of interim order passed in this Court in W.P.(C). No.31070/2006, which as stated above, was allowed as per Ext.P5 judgment. W.P.(C). Nos. 16887, 18236 & 18367 OF 2009 4 6. In the meanwhile, the wage structure of the security personnel deployed by DGR sponsored agencies was revised from time to time as evidenced by Ext.P3 series. It seems that the petitioner was not paid the wages for the security personnel deployed as per the revised scheme. Repeated representations were submitted by the petitioner and the same is evidenced by Ext.P6 series and in fact, Ext.P7(a) agreement for the period from 01.11.2007 to 30.09.2008 contains stipulations that revised wages as per the notifications of the DGR will be paid on production of documents. Subsequent representations by the petitioner is evidenced by Ext.P11. But neither revised wages nor arrears of wages has been paid of and hence the writ petition. 7. The BSNL filed a counter affidavit wherein it is affirmed that the petitioner did provides security service coverage for the period from 01.10.2004 to 30.09.2008. The initial period of two years, according to the BSNL, from 01.10.2004 to 30.09.2006 was preceeded by a sponsorship by the DGR. The petitioner continues beyond the period of 30.09.2006, on the strength of the interim order passed by this Court and though an agreement W.P.(C). Nos. 16887, 18236 & 18367 OF 2009 5 was executed for the period from 01.11.2007 to 30.09.2008, the DGR has not sponsored the petitioner for the said period as well. Going by the counter affidavit by the first respondent, the only reason given for not paying the petitioner revised wages for the security personnel deployed by the petitioner was that the petitioner was not a DGR sponsored agency beyond the period of 30.09.2006. Para 10 and 11 of the counter affidavit filed by the BSNL contains the gist of the stand taken by the BSNL in this regard. They reads as follows:- “ 10. Since the agency was not considered as a DGR sponsored agencies and hence did not come under the purview of DGR guidelines. In the decision of the learned single judge there was a direction to allow the petitioner to continue and complete the two years period and further observed that if necessary the DGR should issue formal orders of re-sponsorship. This respondent by letter dated 03.10.2007 requested the DGR to issue orders re-sponsoring the petitioner but till date no orders have been issued by the DGR. The copy of the letter dated 03.10.2007 is produced for reference and marked as Ext.R1(f). 11. The petitioner continued as an agency without re-sponsorship and this respondent was compelled to enter into an agreement. Payments were made on the basis of the agreement but the regular orders issued by W.P.(C). Nos. 16887, 18236 & 18367 OF 2009 6 the DGR was not made applicable to the petitioner. The prayer for revising the wages on the basis of the orders issued by the DGR cannot be accepted. The DGR guidelines clearly state that only sponsored agency should be allowed to provide security coverage for the public undertaking ”. 8. I have heard Counsel on both sides. I am not impressed with the stand taken by the BSNL in denying the petitioner wages as per the revised wage structure notified from time to time as evidenced by Ext.P3 series. Admittedly, the petitioner was initially sponsored by the DGR and it is accordingly that an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the BSNL for the period from 01.10.2004 to 30.09.2006 as evidenced by Ext.P4. The petitioner’s claim for an extension of the sponsorship and reallotment for another two years was upheld by this Court as per Ext.P5 judgment and a direction as prayed for by the petitioner was also issued by this Court as well. The DGR challenged Ext.P5 judgment before a Bench of this Court. The appeals were disposed of by Ext.P5(a) judgment. It was thus, the petitioner continued to provide security service coverage for a further period of two years from 01.10.2006 to 30.09.2008. BSNL also executed an agreement for the period W.P.(C). Nos. 16887, 18236 & 18367 OF 2009 7 from 01.11.2007 to 30.9.2008. The agreement contained an undertaking that wages shall be paid as per the notification issued by the DGR. The nature of the services rendered by the petitioner during the initial period of two years and the subsequent period of two years have admittedly remained the same. It is admitted by the BSNL that they have recommended extension of the petitioner’s sponsorship for a further period of two years after the initial period of two years. Refusal on the part of the DGR to extend the sponsorship for a period of two years was interfered by this Court and in fact, petitioner had continued as a security agency till 30.09.2008; altogether for a period of 4 years. In these circumstances, there is no justification for denying the petitioner, wages as per the revised structure notified by the DGR from time to time and applicable for the period. Petitioner is entitled to be treated as a DGR sponsored agency for the entire period of 4 years during which it had provided security service coverage to the BSNL. 9. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the first respondent to pay the petitioner the amounts due to it, with reference to claim made in Ext.P11 and in accordance with the W.P.(C). Nos. 16887, 18236 & 18367 OF 2009 8 rates notified by DGR as per Ext.P3 series and applicable for the period in question on production of the requisite documents by the petitioner, within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. W.P.(C).No.16887/2009 10. The first petitioner in this case is a DGR Empanelled Security Service Agency. Ext.P1 agreement was executed between the first petitioner and the BSNL for the period from 01.12.2006 to 30.11.2008. Security service coverage was provided by the Security Service Agency for the said period. Petitioner’s grievance arises from the claim for revised wages and other allowances as per Ext.P2 revised DGR guidelines. 11. The discussion above in relation to W.P.(C).18236/2009 would apply to the petitioner in this case also. The 5th respondent shall look into Ext.P3 and see that the wages as are notified by the DGR from time to time and applicable for the period covered by the petitioner’s agreement with the BSNL are disbursed to the first petitioner within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that wages and other allowances as are notified by the DGR in its W.P.(C). Nos. 16887, 18236 & 18367 OF 2009 9 guidelines shall be applicable in the case of the petitioner. W.P.(C).No. 18367/2009 12. The petitioner is a DGR Empanelled Security Agency and it has entered into Ext.P1 agreement with the BSNL, for providing security personnel to the BSNL. Ext.P1 related to a period of two years and the period was extended by another two years. The contract expired on 30.06.2007. Petitioner’s claim relates to revised wages as notified by Ext.P2 for the period from 01.02.2007 to 30.06.2007. There is a claim relatable to HRA and other allowances on the strength of the said contract. Petitioner’s representations Exts.P4, P6, P7 and P8 shall be looked into and wages and allowances as notified in the DGR guidelines as are applicable for the period in question, shall be disbursed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. All the writ petitions are disposed of as above. (V.GIRI) JUDGE kkms/