1 1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION NO.10532 OF 2004. WRIT PETITION NO.10532 OF 2004. WRIT PETITION NO.10532 OF 2004. Maharashtra Rajya Suraksha Rakshak & General Kamgar Union : Petitioner. versus Pune District Security Guards Board & ors. : Respondents. Ms.Ranjana Todankar h/f Mr.S.S.Pakale for the petitioner. Mrs.Pallavi Divekar for Respondent No.1. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & NARESH H. PATIL, JJ. NARESH H. PATIL, JJ. NARESH H. PATIL, JJ. DATED : September 08, 2006. DATED : September 08, 2006. DATED : September 08, 2006. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-Union. Perused the affidavit-in- reply filed by Respondent No.3. It is clearly stated in the affidavit that the contract was discontinued by the respondent No.2 as per notice dated 28.1.2005 and the concerned guards have not reported for their duties with effect from 1.3.2005. Respondent No.3 issued a letter to the 2 2 2 guards on 17.3.2005 and when they reported in response thereto, they were paid wages for the month of February. However, when they were offered services at different locations as security guards, they declined to accept the offer. They are not in employment of Respondent No.3 as at present. 2. The petitioner-Union may take appropriate steps either by filing an application before the Respondent No.1 - the Board for registration or to agitate the issue of termination of service of the guards, if so required. 3. Hence nothing survives in this petition as at present and, therefore, the same is hereby rejected. [NARESH H. PATIL, J] [NARESH H. PATIL, J] [NARESH H. PATIL, J] [B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.]