HC dismisses union’s plea to retain security guards at IIT-B
Mumbai: In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a union seeking to retain the security guards deployed at the Indian Institute of Technology-Bombay (IIT-B) campus. The decision was made by Justices Riyaz Chagla and Advait Sethna on Friday, April 12, 2026.
The Case Background
The petition was filed by the Maharashtra Rajya Suraksha Rakshak and General Kamgar Union, representing a total of 81 security guards. These guards were initially provided to IIT-B through the Security Guards Board for Greater Mumbai and Thane. However, their services were terminated effective October 10, 2025, following an inspection by the board, which found that private security guards were engaged on the campus.
Arguments Presented
During the court proceedings, the union’s advocate, Avinash Belge, argued that IIT-B, as a registered principal employer, had a statutory obligation to engage the guards allotted by the board. Conversely, the advocate for IIT-B, Amrut Joshi, contended that the petition was not maintainable because the union and its members had no direct contract with IIT-B. The judges emphasized that there was no employer-employee relationship between the guards and the institute.
Court’s Ruling
The judges ruled that the guards have no vested right to be retained at IIT-B. They stated, “The petitioner-union cannot compel IIT to continue the security guards/members of the petitioner. There can be no permanent attachment of those security guards to IIT.” This ruling was based on the principle that security guards deployed through the board do not become employees of the principal employer.
Legal Precedents
The court cited a precedent from the Supreme Court, affirming that the relationship between the guards and IIT-B is not one of direct employment. The judges noted that the petition was “thoroughly misconceived” as there was no deprivation of benefits under the Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act. They pointed out that the board could redeploy these security guards to other establishments.
Interim Order and Future Steps
Despite the dismissal of the petition, the judges issued an interim order to stay their judgment for four weeks. This stay allows the union an opportunity to appeal the decision in the Supreme Court. The judges recognized the urgency of the matter, given the impending termination of the guards’ services.
Implications of the Ruling
This ruling has significant implications for the security guards and the union representing them. It underscores the complexities of employment relationships in the context of contracted security services. The decision also raises questions about the rights of workers in similar situations, particularly in the context of contractual employment.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court’s decision reflects a broader legal framework regarding employment rights and the responsibilities of principal employers. As the union considers its next steps, including a potential appeal to the Supreme Court, the outcome will be closely watched by other unions and workers in similar positions across the region.
Note: This article is based on information available as of April 12, 2026, and may be subject to updates as the case progresses.
