MAHARASHTRA RAJYA SURAKSHA RAKSHAK AND GENERAL KAMGAR UNION vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE DEPT AND ORS Advocate - GOVERNMENT PLEADER AS — WP/13340/2025

Case under Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act (Maharashtra) Section NA. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM010529032025

Filing Number

WP/33229/2025

Filing Date

07-Oct-2025

Registration No

WP/13340/2025

Registration Date

09-Oct-2025

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla , Hon'ble Justice Advait M. Sethna

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla , Hon'ble Justice Advait M. Sethna

Bench Type

Division

Category

LABOUR MATTERS DB ( 19 )

Sub-Category

DISMISSAL/TERMINATION ( 5 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

10-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 20-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act (Maharashtra) Section NA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MAHARASHTRA RAJYA SURAKSHA RAKSHAK AND GENERAL KAMGAR UNION

    Adv. Avinash Belge

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE DEPT AND ORS Advocate - GOVERNMENT PLEADER AS

  2. 2.SECURITY GUARDS BOARD FOR BRIHAN MUMBAI AND THANE

    Adv. AMARDEV UNIYAL

  3. 3.INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BOMBAY

  4. 4.M/S. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BOMBAY

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla,hon'ble Justice Advait M. SethnaView PDF

    Summary The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a security guards' union challenging IIT Bombay's termination of 81 registered security guards. The court found the petition unmaintainable because the union lacked privity of contract with IIT—only the Security Guards Board had a contractual relationship with IIT. The court held that security guards deployed through the Board do not become direct employees of the principal employer and the Board retains authority to redeploy them, making permanent attachment to any single establishment impossible. A four-week stay was granted to allow appeal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-Apr-2026

    High On Board (Hob)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla , Hon'ble Justice Advait M. Sethna

  4. 30-Mar-2026

    High On Board (Hob)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla , Hon'ble Justice Advait M. Sethna

  5. 26-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla,hon'ble Justice Advait M. SethnaView PDF

  6. 26-Mar-2026

    At 4.00 P.M.

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla , Hon'ble Justice Advait M. Sethna

  7. 23-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla,hon'ble Justice Advait M. SethnaView PDF

  8. 23-Mar-2026

    At 4.00 P.M.

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla , Hon'ble Justice Advait M. Sethna

  9. 17-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla,hon'ble Justice Advait M. SethnaView PDF

  10. 17-Mar-2026

    At 4.00 P.M.

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla , Hon'ble Justice Advait M. Sethna

  11. 16-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla,hon'ble Justice Advait M. SethnaView PDF

  12. 16-Mar-2026

    Part-Heard

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla , Hon'ble Justice Advait M. Sethna

  13. 12-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla,hon'ble Justice Advait M. SethnaView PDF

  14. 12-Mar-2026

    Part-Heard

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla , Hon'ble Justice Advait M. Sethna

  15. 10-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla,hon'ble Justice Advait M. SethnaView PDF

  16. 10-Mar-2026

    At 4.00 P.M.

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla , Hon'ble Justice Advait M. Sethna

  17. 09-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla,hon'ble Justice Advait M. SethnaView PDF

  18. 09-Mar-2026

    At 4.00 P.M.

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla , Hon'ble Justice Advait M. Sethna

  19. 06-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla,hon'ble Justice Advait M. SethnaView PDF

  20. 26-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla,hon'ble Justice Advait M. SethnaView PDF

  21. 17-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla,hon'ble Justice Advait M. SethnaView PDF

  22. 17-Feb-2026

    High On Board (Hob)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla , Hon'ble Justice Advait M. Sethna

  23. 11-Feb-2026

    Urgent Order

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe

  24. 05-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla,hon'ble Justice Advait M. SethnaView PDF

  25. 05-Feb-2026

    High On Board (Hob)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla , Hon'ble Justice Advait M. Sethna

  26. 29-Jan-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla,hon'ble Justice Advait M. SethnaView PDF

  27. 29-Jan-2026

    High On Board (Hob)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla , Hon'ble Justice Advait M. Sethna

  28. 13-Jan-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla,hon'ble Justice Advait M. SethnaView PDF

  29. 19-Dec-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge,hon'ble Shri Justice Ashwin D. BhobeView PDF

  30. 19-Dec-2025

    Urgent Order

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe

  31. 18-Dec-2025

    Fresh Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe

  32. 11-Dec-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge,hon'ble Shri Justice Ashwin D. BhobeView PDF

  33. 26-Nov-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge,hon'ble Shri Justice Ashwin D. BhobeView PDF

  34. 26-Nov-2025

    Fresh Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe

  35. 10-Oct-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge,hon'ble Shri Justice Ashwin D. BhobeView PDF

  36. 10-Oct-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  37. 07-Oct-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/13340/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a security guards' union challenging IIT Bombay's termination of 81 registered security guards. The court found the petition unmaintainable because the union lacked privity of contract with IIT—only the Security Guards Board had a contractual relationship with IIT. The court held that security guards deployed through the Board do not become direct employees of the principal employer and the Board retains authority to redeploy them, making permanent attachment to any single establishment impossible. A four-week stay was granted to allow appeal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case