Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
OLR/96/2003 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
OFFICIAL
LIQUDATOR REPORT NO. 96 OF 2003
In
COMPANY
APPLICATION NO. 37 OF 2001
=========================================================
OFFICIAL
LIQUIDATOR, NOBLE DETECTIVE &
SECURITY
SERVICES PVT. LTS. - Applicant(s)
Versus
I.C.I.C.I.
BANK LTD. & ORS. - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR.
M.A. KUVADIA, OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR for
Applicant(s).
MR. SANDEEP SINGHI for M/S.SINGHI & CO. for
Opponent(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Opponent(s) : 2 - 3.
MR.
T.R. MISHRA for Opponent(s) : 4.
NONE for Opponent(s) : 5.
MR.
D.S. VASAVADA for Opponent(s) : 6.
NOTICE SERVED for Opponent(s) :
7.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE R.S.GARG
Date
: 12/04/2006
ORAL
ORDER
1. Mr.Kamal
B.Trivedi, learned Additional Advocate General, has submitted a
Report from the side of the State Government. The Report does not
give proper details of the things. It simply says that wide publicity
was given and private security agencies operating in the State were
invited to submit the required data and information. He also submits
that various private security agencies supplied the requisite
information and the State Government has identified and nominated
Officers, not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, etc.
It is also stated in the Report that the said Nodal Officers have
duly started verifying the antecedents of the persons retained by the
private security agencies and lastly that the Private Security
Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 has come into operation with effect
from 15th March, 2006.
2. Agreeing
with Honourable Mr.Justice. Jayant Patel, I would further say that
the State Government on one side is issuing Circulars and
Notifications that what would be the minimum salary/wages to be paid
to an unskilled labour or an employee, but, at the same time, has not
taken care to look into the work and working of these security
agencies, which are recovering Rs.1,150/- per security guard from the
Official Liquidator and after deducting a sum of Rs.250/- from the
said amount, are paying Rs.900/- only to such security guard. I have
come across the statements of the security agencies wherein they have
said that to pay a sum of Rs.1,800/- to a security guard, they are
taking sixteen hours’ duty from such person, are charging a sum of
Rs.2,300/- from the Official Liquidator and after deducting a sum of
Rs.250/- per salary or Rs.500/- from the total payment, they are
paying Rs.1,800/- to the security guard. According to the
Notifications, at least a sum of Rs.91/- per day or Rs.2,700/- and
odds per month is to be paid to an unskilled labour. If anything less
is paid by any entrepreneur
or the person working with the Government, then, such person can be
exposed to criminal action, but, no actions are being taken by the
State Government even when it is brought to their notice that the
Notifications/Circulars issued by the State Government are flouted
day and night. Even otherwise, sixteen hours’ duty cannot be taken
from an employee. If a person is required to work for eight hours a
day, then, he cannot be asked to work for more than eight hours and
in case, he works for more than eight hours, then, he is required to
be paid overtime. From the Report filed by the State Government, it
doesn’t appear that all these aspects have been taken into
consideration or that they have made any Rules or Regulations or,
within the sweep of the Minimum Wages Act they have covered the
security
agency also. Put up on 27th April, 2006. In the
meanwhile, the State Government shall look into the details and
submit its additional report.
3. It
is also to be noted that many times, reports are made to the Court
either through the purchaser of the property of the Company under
liquidation or through the Official Liquidator or through the
security agency, that certain articles have been removed
surreptitiously or theft has been
committed, in such cases, when reports are made to the Police,
unfortunately, the Police personnel or the concerned Inspector do not
take appropriate action in the matter. In a case where the security
agency deploys the security guards and despite that, theft is
committed, then, an action in accordance with law has to be taken by
the State Government, through its Home Department/Police services.
They cannot be allowed to say that as the matter is pending in the
Court, they would sit idle and would not take any action. Let the
observations made by this Court be communicated by Mr.Trivedi to the
Home Department for its appropriate circulation to each and every
Police Station of the State.
[R.S.Garg,
J.]
kamlesh*
Top