IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 37316 of 2010(L)
1. M/S.VAISH SECURITY SERVICES,
... Petitioner
2. M/S.ESQUIRE SECURITY SERVICES,
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY DEFENCE,
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF RE-SETTLEMENT
3. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. (BSNL),
4. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,
5. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
For Respondent :SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :21/12/2010
O R D E R
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No. 37316 OF 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are security agencies engaged in
deployment of security guards in various BSNL institutions.
Exts.P1 and P2 are the agreements entered for that purpose
between the petitioners and the 3rd respondent. Evidently,
Exts.P1 and P2 contains clause 19 as hereunder:-
BSNL also reserves the right to increase or decrease
the strength of the personnel deployed, depending
upon the exigencies of the service required by giving
15 days notice to the Agency.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that Exts.P1 and P2
agreements are valid up to 31.3.2011. The grievance voiced
in this Writ Petition is against the attempt on the part of the
respondents to displace the security guards deployed by the
petitioners and to induct some others in their place.
However, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd
respondent submits that the decision to terminate the service
of security guards deployed by the petitioners was taken
pursuant to the decision of the respondents to decrease the
WPC. No.37316/2010
: 2 :
strength of the security personnel in terms of clause 19
referred above. It is further submitted that there is no
intention at all to substitute or to terminate the service of
security guards deployed by the petitioners by inducting
certain others in the resultant vacancies. In view of the
assertion made on behalf of the respondents, I am of the view
that there is no reason for any apprehension. Therefore,
recording the above submission made on behalf of the
respondents this writ petition is closed.
Sd/-
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
jma
//true copy//
P.A to Judge