‘Can’t compel IIT’ to retain them: Bombay High Court junks plea over termination of 81 guards

‘No deprivation of any benefits’

• The high court pointed out that security guards deployed through the statutory board, the security guard board, do not become employees of the principal employer.
• It pointed out that there is no deprivation of any benefits of the security guards who are members of the union, particularly when the security guard board can always redeploy them at any other establishment.
• It was found that this union’s plea is thoroughly misconceived, apart from not being maintainable.
• The Bombay High Court found merit in the submission by the IIT and pointed out that the present petition filed by the workers’ union is not maintainable since there is no employer – employee relationship between the IIT and security guards.

Justices R I Chagla and Advait M Sethna found that this union’s plea is thoroughly misconceived, in addition to being not maintainable.

Requested guards, terminated later

The Maharashtra Rajya Suraksha Rakshak and General Kamgar Union filed the present petition before the Bombay High Court on behalf of security guards who are members of the union, claiming deprivation of the benefits provided under the relevant laws.

It was placed on record that the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) had registered with the security guards’ board as the principal employer since March 30, 2016. The IIT reportedly requested to send security guards to secure their premises, and the board, accordingly, allotted its members who are the security guards.

It was further highlighted that the chief security officer and head of IIT, instead of employing the registered security guards allotted by the said board, issued a letter on August 11, 2025, terminating the service of the guards working with them since October 10, 2025.

The security guards’ board, on August 14, 2025, and August 25, 2025, directed not to terminate the service of any security guards working with them. However, IIT Bombay ultimately terminated their service.

Arguments

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Avinash Belge argued before the Bombay High Court that the present plea is maintainable as the letters of termination issued by IIT are in violation of the fundamental rights of the security guards/members of the union to employment and/or carrying on of their livelihood.

He added that the IIT is an “establishment” as defined under Section 2(8) of the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 2017.

On the contrary, the counsel for the IIT, advocate Amrut Joshi, submitted that it is for the said board to redeploy the security guards who are members of the union to another factory or establishment.

It was further argued that the union is effectively seeking to compel IIT to continue its members/security guards and indirectly seeking a relief equivalent to the permanent attachment of those guards to IIT, which is contrary to the previous judgment of the Supreme Court.

He added that the IIT is neither an “establishment” nor a “factory” within the meaning provided under the relevant laws and pointed out that the “establishment” means shops, commercial establishments, residential hotels, restaurants and eating houses, theatres and places of public amusement or entertainment.

It was pointed out to the Bombay High Court that an IIT is a central autonomous academic and research body under the Institutes of Technology Act, 1961, and cannot be equated with shops, commercial establishments, or places of public amusement.