Bombay High Court
PANVEL CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANRversusHIND MAZDOOR KISAN PANCHAYAT AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Partly Allowed
- Bench
- SANDEEP V MARNE
Holding
The High Court held that the Industrial Court's direction must be modified so that the Security Board registers the 16 security personnel and deploys them to the Municipal Corporation during the pendency of the complaint.
Summary
The petition filed by Panvel City Municipal Corporation challenged an interim order of the Thane Industrial Court directing it to temporarily absorb 16 security personnel as contract workers. The security staff were originally engaged by a contractor of CIDCO, which, upon transferring civic amenities to the corporation, instructed the corporation to either take over or terminate the workers. The corporation argued that a Government Resolution dated 8 November 2006 requires security guards to be engaged only through the jurisdictional Security Board, preventing direct absorption. The High Court noted the conflict between the contractual transfer agreement and the statutory requirement, and modified the Industrial Court's order, directing the Security Board to register the 16 workers and deploy them to the corporation during the pendency of the complaint. The court also affirmed that the complaint will be decided on its merits without prejudice from the order, and partially allowed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the Municipal Corporation can continue the services of security personnel as contract workers despite the Government Resolution mandating engagement through the Security Board.
- Whether the Industrial Court's direction to absorb the workers is consistent with the statutory framework.
- What mechanism can reconcile the transfer agreement with the statutory requirement to protect the workers' employment.
Subjects
- security guards
- contract workers
- municipal corporation
- government resolution
- industrial court
- employment continuity
- security board registration
Judgment
Vaishnavi 10-WP-16431-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 16431 OF 2025
Panvel City Municipal Corporation and
Anr. ...Petitioners
V/s.
Hind Mazdoor Kisan Panchayat and
Ors. ...Respondents
________________
Mr. Atul Damle, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Srang S. Aradhye with Ms. Gauri
Velankar, for Petitioner.
Mr. Surel Shah, Senior Advocate, Mr. Rahul Sinha (V.C), Mr. Soham
Bhalerao, Mr. Arnav Ashtikar i/b DSK Legal for CISCO.
Mr. Rajaram V. Bansode with Ms. Sheetal M. Ubale and Mr. Abhijeet
Shine, for Respondent No. 1.
Mr. Sanjay P. Shinde, for Respondent No. 4.
Ms. Jinal Meghani i/b A.J. Uniyal and Associates, for Respondent No. 5.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 31 July 2026
P.C.:
1) This Petition is @led by Panvel City Municipal Corporation,
challenging the interim order dated 29 July 2025 passed by the learned
Member Industrial Court, Thane, on application at Exhibit U-2 @led in
Complaint (ULP) No. 89 of 2025. By the impugned order, the Industrial
Page No.1 of 5
31 July 2026
Vaishnavi 10-WP-16431-2025
Court has directed the Petitioner to temporarily absorb services of 16
members of Respondent No. 1-Union as contract workers and to
continue their services during pendency of the Complaint. The impugned
order also directs CIDCO to continue the services of the 16 named
individuals and to pay them wages for the period of 15 Days.
2) I have heard Mr. Damle, the learned Senior Advocate appearing
for the Petitioners, Mr. Bansode, the learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No. 1-Union, Mr. Shah, the learned counsel appearing for
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. Shinde, the learned counsel appearing
for Respondent No. 4-Board
3) It appears that, the 16 members of @rst Respondent-Union were
functioning as workers of the contractor, M/s. Vishal Protection Force
(Respondent No. 6), who was engaged by CIDCO. CIDCO was the
Planning Authority in respect of Kharghar, Kalamboli and Kamothe
Nodes. Upon formation of the Petitioner Municipal Corporation, an
Agreement was executed between Panvel Municipal Corporation and
CIDCO on 10 March 2023, inter alia, for handing over the civic amenities
and CIDCO properties to the Municipal Corporation. One of the
conditions of such transfer was that the amenities would be transferred
alongwith the existing staff (permanent as well as contractual). Thus,
Petitioner Municipal Corporation took upon itself the responsibility to
adjust the permanent and contractual staff engaged for looking after the
handed over public amenities in Kharghar, Kalamboli and Kamothe
Nodes.
Page No.2 of 5
31 July 2026
Vaishnavi 10-WP-16431-2025
4) It appears that total 29 Security employees were engaged to look
after three crematoriums and one Samaj Mandir in the three Nodes
through the Respondent No. 6 contractor. They comprised of 26 Security
Guards and 3 Security Supervisors. Upon handing over of the said
properties to the Municipal Corporation, CIDCO issued intimation to the
contractor by letter dated 29 April 2025, that it would not have the
responsibility of paying wages in respect of the said 29 security
personnel. CIDCO pointed out to the contractor that under the
contractual arrangement, the said contract workers were to be either
transferred to the Petitioner Municipal Corporation or they were to be
terminated. It appears that a separate intimation dated 2 June 2025 was
issued by CIDCO to the Petitioner-Municipal Corporation calling it upon
to adjust and continue the services of the said 29 security personnel.
5) It appears that the Petitioner-Municipal Corporation has a
reservation about continuation of the security personnel engaged by
CIDCO through the Respondent No. 6 on account of provisions of GR
dated 8 November 2006, under which it is mandatory for Government
and semi Government organizations, including planning authorities, to
engage Security Guards only through the jurisdictional Security Board.
The jurisdictional Security Board in the present case is the Respondent
No. 4.
6) Thus, the unique conundrum is created in present case, where
there is an agreement between the Petitioner and CIDCO for
continuation of services of contractual workers upon handing over of
civic amenities by CIDCO to the Petitioner. However, there is an
Page No.3 of 5
31 July 2026
Vaishnavi 10-WP-16431-2025
impediment in the form of GR dated 8 November 2006, which prevents
the Petitioner from engaging Security personnel directly through the
contractors. The Industrial Court has taken note of GR dated 8 November
2006 and has held that registration of Security Guards with the Board is
of vital importance to safeguard their interests. However, the Industrial
Court has still directed the Petitioner to temporarily absorb the services
of the 16 named workers and to continue them as contractual workers
during pendency of the Complaint. So far as direction issued to CIDCO
for payment of wages for period of 15 days is concerned, Mr. Shah
submits that the said direction has been duly complied with.
7) Use of the word ‘absorb’ in operative direction No. (iii) in the
impugned order creates confusion. What is actually envisaged by
direction No. (iii) is continuation of services of the 16 Security personnel
on contract basis during pendency of the Complaint.
8) As observed above, the Petitioner Municipal Corporation is
unable to issue contract to Respondent No. 6 for the purpose of
continuation of services of the 16 security personnel. At the same time,
this limitation on the Petitioner Municipal Corporation has rendered the
16 security personnel jobless. Parties are ad idem that the 16 Security
personnel were engaged by CIDCO through contractors in their capacity
as project affected persons. In my view, an arrangement needs to be
made during pendency of the Complaint for registration of the 16
security personnel with Respondent No. 4-Board, with a direction to the
Board to deploy them with the Petitioner Municipal Corporation during
pendency of the Complaint. This would serve twin objections of ensuring
Page No.4 of 5
31 July 2026
Vaishnavi 10-WP-16431-2025
due compliance with provisions of GR dated 8 November 2006 as well as
providing job to the 16 security personnel.
9) I accordingly proceed to pass the following order:
i) Oder dated 29 July 2025 passed by the Industrial Court on
application at Exhibit U-2 in Complaint (ULP) No. 89 of 2025 is
modi@ed to the extent that operative direction No. (iii) is
replaced with the direction that the Respondent No. 4-Board
shall forthwith register the 16 named security personnel. Towards
this end, the concerned 16 security personnel shall @le an
applications with the Board, alongwith requisite documents,
within a period of one week.
ii) Upon grant of registration to 16 security personnel, the
Respondent No.4 Board shall depute them with the Petitioner
Municipal Corporation in an expeditious manner and within
outer limit of four weeks.
iii) This arrangement would be restricted only to 16 named
security personnel in the order dated 29 July 2025 and the same
shall continue during pendency of the Complaint.
10) The Complaint shall be decided by the Industrial Court on its own
merits without being inHuenced by any observations made in the order.
11) With the above directions, the Writ Petition is partly allowed and
disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Page No.5 of 5
31 July 2026
Checking your session…