Judgment :- P.B. Majmudar, J. It is agreed by the leaned counsel appearing for the parties that both these writ petitions can be finally disposed of at the admission stage itself. Hence, both these writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Rule. Learned AGP and advocates appearing for respective respondents waive service of Rule. With the consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard. 3. Firstly we shall deal with Writ Petition No. 6749 of 2009. 3.1 The petitioner union has prayed for quashing the notification dated 8th April, 2009 issued by the first respondent, a copy whereof is at Annexure-B to the petition, by which exemption has been granted to the Security Guards employed by respondent No.4-principal employer under Section 23 of the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). By the aforesaid notification, the Government granted exemption from the operations of all or any of the provisions of the Act and the Scheme, the Security Guards employed or to be employed by the employer agency specified in Sr. No. 1 of the Schedule-1, appended to the notification and deployed to the principal employer for a period of three years from the date of application of the notification in the official gazette subject to the condition as prescribed in Schedule-II. The said notification dated 8th April, 2009, for ready reference, reads thus: “Industries, Energy and Labour Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032. Dated: 8th April, 2009. The said notification dated 8th April, 2009, for ready reference, reads thus: “Industries, Energy and Labour Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032. Dated: 8th April, 2009. No. SGA-1508/C.R. 1237/Lab5:- Whereas certain Employer Agencies employing Security Guards in Brihanmumbai and Thane Districts have applied for grant of exemption for the Security Guards employed by them, under Section 23 of the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment & Welfare) Act, 1981 (MAH LVIII of 1981) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) on grounds that the said Security Guards are in the enjoyment of benefits, which are on the whole, more favourable to them than the benefits provided by the said Act or the Scheme made thereunder: And whereas, there are some agencies who do not intend to start business illegally have approached the State Government with a written undertaking that they will comply with all the terms and conditions which may be specified by Government from time to time in the Notification granting exemption to their Security Guards, if exemption is granted to them; And whereas, the Government of Maharashtra, after consulting the Advisory Committee has formed an opinion that the Security Guards which have already been employed by such employer agencies are in the enjoyment of benefits, which are on the whole more favourable to them than the benefits provided by the said Act and the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment & Welfare) Scheme, 2002, (hereinafter referred t o as the “said scheme”). Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 23 of the said Act, the Government of Maharashtra hereby exempts from the operations of all or any of the provisions of the Act and the Scheme, the Security Guards employed or to be employed by the employer agency specified in Sr. No.1 of the Schedule-1, appended herewith and deployed to the Principal Employer mentioned in Schedule-1 appended herewith for a period of three years from the date of application of this Notification in the Official Gazette subject to the condition as prescribed in Schedule-II. However, they should fulfill the conditions mentioned in Schedule-II within a period of 3 months from the date of publication of this notification. Otherwise, the exemption given to the said security guards will stand automatically cancelled. However, they should fulfill the conditions mentioned in Schedule-II within a period of 3 months from the date of publication of this notification. Otherwise, the exemption given to the said security guards will stand automatically cancelled. In such cases, the Principal Employer who is engaging Security Guards of whose exemption is cancelled as above shall get himself registered with the Board as provided under clause 13 (1) (a) of the Scheme and also get registered the Security Guards with the Board whose exemption is cancelled and engaged those security guards for his establishment while registering such guards Board shall follow directions issued by the Government in respect of registration of the Guards.” 3.2 As pointed out earlier, this petition is confined only to the security guards employed with Respondent No.4 – principal employer. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in view of the Act of 1981, which is applicable in Brihanmumbai and Thane Districts, there is now no scope for granting exemption under Section 23 of the Act and as such the exemption is only a one time exemption which is to be considered at the initial stage at the time when the Act is made applicable and subsequently there is no provision to grant exemption under Section 23 of the Act. In the notification it was provided that the security guards employed or to be employed by the employer agency specified in serial No.1 of Schedule-I appended therewith and deployed to the principal employer mentioned in Schedule-1 appended therewith for a period of three years from the date of application of the notification. However, by a subsequent corrigendum dated 19th June, 2010, the words “or to be employed” have been deleted from the said notification dated 8th April, 2009. 4. Mr. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, submits that the exemption granted under Section 23 of the Act is only one time exemption at the time when the Act is made applicable in the concerned areas and subsequently there is no scope of applying the provisions of Section 23 of the Act. It is submitted by Mr. Singhvi that initially the provisions of the Act were made applicable to Brihanmumbai and Thane Districts. It is submitted by Mr. Singhvi that initially the provisions of the Act were made applicable to Brihanmumbai and Thane Districts. As and when the provisions of the Act are made applicable to other parts of Maharashtra, the said exemption provision can be invoked, but in areas where the Act is already operating the said exemption provisions cannot be invoked and otherwise it will frustrate the entire object of the Act and the scheme framed thereunder. It is further submitted by Mr. Singhvi that once the Act is made applicable, the employer agency has no role to play and the service conditions of the security guards are required to be governed under the provisions of the Act of 1981. It is further submitted by Mr. Singhvi that even otherwise to seek benefit under Section 23 of the Act, three conditions are required to be fulfilled viz. (i) the class or classes of security guards should be employed by the agency or agent; (ii) those security guards must be deployed by the concerned agency in a factory or establishment or in any class or classes of factories or establishments and (iii) in the opinion of the State Government, all such security guards or such class or classes of security guards are in the enjoyment of benefits which are on the whole not less favourable to such security guards than the benefits provided by or under the Act or any scheme framed thereunder. It is further submitted by Mr. Singhvi that the concerned security guards, who have already been employed by such employer agencies, are in the enjoyment of benefits which are on the whole not less favourable to such security guards than the benefits provided by or under the Act or any scheme framed thereunder. Mr. Singhvi further submitted that after the Act has come into force, the principal employer is prohibited from taking private security guards from security agencies. Mr. Singhvi further submitted that after the Act has come into force, the principal employer is prohibited from taking private security guards from security agencies. The exemption could be asked only in respect of the security guards who, on the date of commencement of the Act in that particular area, were employed by the agency and deployed by the said agency in any factory or establishment and in the opinion of the State Government, those security guards were in the enjoyment of benefits which were on the whole not less favourable to such security guards than the benefits provided by or under the Act and the scheme framed thereunder. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Singhvi further submitted that looking to the provisions of the Act and the scheme framed thereunder, it is only a one time exercise for seeking exemption for private security guards who were employed by the agency and deployed by that agency in a factory or establishment and such exercise has to be done only at the time when the provisions of the Act are made applicable to different areas in the State. In order to substantiate his say, Mr. Singhvi has relied upon certain judgments of this Court and the Apex Court, to which reference will be made later on in this judgment. Alternatively Mr. Singhvi argued that assuming that Section 23 is applicable, there is no justification for issuing such exemption notification in the instant case. 5. Ms. Bhende, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for the first respondent-State and Mr. Rizvi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, on the other hand, supported the exemption notification by submitting that it cannot be said that the exemption under Section 23 of the Act is applicable only at the initial stage when the Act is sought to be applied. 6. Mr. Rizvi has also submitted that after the enactment of the State Act, Central Act known as “The Private Security Agencies (Regulation), 2005 has been enacted. The Parliament, therefore, sought to cover the field relating to employment and deployment of private security guards by private security agencies and to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service or employment of private security guards employed by agencies. The Parliament, therefore, sought to cover the field relating to employment and deployment of private security guards by private security agencies and to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service or employment of private security guards employed by agencies. The Central Act prevailed over the State Act in so far as the security guards employed by the agency are concerned and in view of the same, the State Act has no application. It is further submitted that though it is no doubt true that a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1658 of 1999 (M/s. Alsecure and Protection Services (I) and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and another) decided on 14th August, 2009, has negatived such contention that in view of the enactment of the Central Act, the State Act has no application. The Special Leave Petition preferred against the said decision is pending, wherein certain interim orders have been passed by the Apex Court. In so far as application of Section 23 of the Act is concerned, the learned counsel further submitted that it is a continuous process and it cannot be said that it is only one time provision in the Act. Mr. Rizvi further submitted that there is substantial amendment in the Act in the year 1996. According to him, if it was one time exemption, as contended by Mr. Singhvi, there was no reason to frame the scheme in the year 2002. It is further submitted by him that if the agency is totally abolished, then there was no question of referring to the agency in the said scheme. According to him, agency is not done away under the Act nor it is abolished. In the scheme there is a reference to the word “agency”. It is accordingly submitted that there is no substance in the contention of Mr. Singhvi that exemption is applicable only at the time when the Act is made applicable in a particular area and it is only one time exemption. Mr. Rizvi has also submitted that if submission of Mr. Singhvi is to be accepted that it is only one time exemption, then it will create difficulty in connection with those industries or factories which are established at the latter point of time. 7. Smt. Lata Desai, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 Board, has supported the contention of Mr. Mr. Rizvi has also submitted that if submission of Mr. Singhvi is to be accepted that it is only one time exemption, then it will create difficulty in connection with those industries or factories which are established at the latter point of time. 7. Smt. Lata Desai, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 Board, has supported the contention of Mr. Singhvi that it should be held as a one time exemption at the time when the Act is made applicable. 8. So far as Writ Petition No. 4252 of 2009 is concerned, the same is filed by a Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. According to the petitioner Union, under the provisions of the Scheme of 2002, every principal employer is required to be registered with the Board. The second respondent in the said writ petition is not registered with the Board. Respondent No.3 is a private contractor engaged in the business of supplying security guards to various establishments. It is prayed that since respondent No.2, principal employer is required to be registered with the security guards Board and since there is no such registration, appropriate direction may be issued directing respondent No.1 Board to register the security guards listed in Exhibit-A to the petition and to allot them to respondent No.2 establishment. It is further prayed for a direction to respondent No.2 to get itself registered with the Board. It is also prayed that appropriate penal action may be initiated against respondent No.2 as per clause 42 of the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare ) Scheme, 2002. 8.1. The said petition is resisted by the Board by filing a reply of Deepak Dattatraya Raikar, Secretary of the Security Guards Board for Greater Mumbai and Thane Districts. He has stated that the petitioner Union has merely lodged the so-called applications of security guards with the Board on 8th April, 2009, while the present writ petition seeking mandatory orders is filed in the same month. It is also averred that the security guards are required to submit certified records of attendance sheet/salary sheet and other details which show the period for which the concerned security guards are employed with the principal employer and also to fulfill the conditions of educational qualifications and physical fitness. It is also averred that the security guards are required to submit certified records of attendance sheet/salary sheet and other details which show the period for which the concerned security guards are employed with the principal employer and also to fulfill the conditions of educational qualifications and physical fitness. In the present case, the concerned security guards have not produced the certified records along with the applications and without completing the formalities, they have rushed to this Court by way of this petition. It is also further averred in the reply that the Board in consultation with the State Government issued an advertisement in Loksatta, a Marathi daily newspaper, inviting applications from the security guards, who wish to obtain registration with the Board. A challenge to the said decision was made by the petitioner union by way of writ petition No. 2122 of 2008 and another writ petition No. 1506 of 2008. Both the said writ petitions were disposed of by this Court on 27th January, 2009 by which certain directions were given. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.1 Board issued a fresh advertisement on 10th February, 2009 in Sakal, a Marathi newspaper, inviting applications from all security guards including the existing security guards, who are members of the petitioner Union, for registration with the Board. According to the deponent, the Board has received 16,000 applications from the security guards seeking registration with the Board and the Board is processing the applications diligently. It is accordingly prayed that this petition is without any substance and the same is required to be dismissed. 9. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at great length. We have also gone through the provisions of the Act and the scheme framed thereunder and various case laws cited at the Bar. 10. The principal question which is required to be considered in Writ Petition No. 6749 of 2009 is as to whether the provisions of Section 23 of the Act which provides for exemption is only one time exemption i.e. At the time when the Act is made applicable to certain areas or the exemption can be made applicable at any point of time. In order to appreciate the aforesaid aspect, a reference is required to be made to Section 23 of the Act. The same reads thus:- “23. In order to appreciate the aforesaid aspect, a reference is required to be made to Section 23 of the Act. The same reads thus:- “23. The State Government may, after consulting the Advisory Committee, by notification in the Official Gazette, and subject to such conditions and for such period as may be specified in the notification, exempt from the operation of all or any of the provisions of the Act or any Scheme made thereunder, all or any class or classes of Security Guards employed by the agency or agent as may be specified in the notification and deployed in any factory or establishment or in any class or classes of factories or establishment, if in the opinion of the State Government, all such Security Guards or such class or classes of Security Guards are in the enjoyment of benefits, which are on the whole not less favourable to such Security Guards than the benefits provided by or under this Act or any scheme made thereunder. Provided that the State Government, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, at any time, for reasons to be specified, rescind the aforesaid notification.” (emphasis supplied) So far as the words “by the agency or agent as may be specified in the notification and deployed” as concerned, the same are added subsequently by the amendment in the year 1996. 11. Sub-section (1) of Section 2 defines “agency” or “agent” as under: “agency” or “agent”, in relation to a security guard, means an individual or body of individuals or a body corporate, who or which employees security guards in his or its employment on wages and undertakes to execute any security work or watch ad ward work on contract, for any factory or establishment by engaging the security guards in his or its employment, but does not include a sub-agency or subagent or the Board.” Sub-section (1a) of Section 2 defines “Advisory Committee” to mean a Committee constituted under Section 15 of the Act. Subsection (8) defines “principal employer” which reads thus: “”principal employer”, in relation to any class or classes of security guards deployed in a factory or establishment by the agency or agent or Board, means the person who has ultimate control over the affairs of the factory or establishment and includes any other person to whom the affairs of such factory or establishment are entrusted whether such person is called Authorised Representative, Manager or by any other name prevailing in the factory or establishment” The aforesaid sub-section (8) was substituted in the year 1996. The security guard “or “private security guard” is defined in subsection (10) of Section 2 which reads thus: “Security Guard” or “Private Security Guard” means a person who is engaged through any agency or agent or Board to do security work or watch and ward work in any factory or establishment but does not include the members of any principal employer’s family or any person who is a direct employee of the principal employer.” Considering the aforesaid provisions of the Act as well as the Scheme prevailing as on today, in our view, it is not possible to accept the contention of Mr. Singhvi that Section 23 of the Act is applicable only at the initial stage when the provisions of the Act are made applicable. In our view, till the security guard is registered with the Board, he can always consider as to whether he would like to be registered with the Board or seek exemption if he is working at an establishment where the service conditions are more favourable. In a given case, if he is paid better remuneration, there is no reason why he may not ask for exemption in such eventuality. However, once the security guard is registered and placed in common pool thereafter, there is no scope of application of Section 23 so far as such security guard or class of security guards are concerned. Till registration with the Board, in our view, the exemption can be given to a particular security guard or class of security guards in case, according to such security guard or security guards, the service condition wherein how they are deployed is better as compared to the service conditions which were available after registration with the Board. Till registration with the Board, in our view, the exemption can be given to a particular security guard or class of security guards in case, according to such security guard or security guards, the service condition wherein how they are deployed is better as compared to the service conditions which were available after registration with the Board. During the time when the exemption is in force, naturally such security guard may not get benefit of the provisions of the Act. However, at any point of time he can apply for registration with the Board after the exemption period is over. Once an exemption is granted, as aforesaid, the principal employer cannot ask for services of the security guard from the pool. In any case, if such provision is not available to any industry or factory established after 1981, it may create a hurdle for any security guard employed or deployed with such an industry or factory, if he desires to ask for exemption. It is not possible to believe that application of Section 23 is only at the initial stage when the Act is made applicable in a particular area and thereafter it has no application. 13. Reading of Section 23 of the Act, which is prevailing as on today after the amendment in 1996, it clearly provides that the State Government may exempt from the operation of all or any of the provisions of the Act or any scheme made thereunder, all or any class or classes of security guards employed by the agency or agent as may be specified in the notification and deployed in any factory or establishment. A plain reading of the aforesaid Section hardly leaves any doubt that the security guard employed by the agency or agent as may be specified in the notification and who are deployed in any factory or establishment or any class or classes of security guards employed by the agency or agent as may be specified in the notification and deployed in any factory or establishment or in any class or classes of factories or establishments, can be exempted if it is found that the service benefits which the security guards derive are not less favourable to such security guards than the benefits provided under the Act or any scheme framed thereunder. The security guard who is employed by the agency or agents or who is deployed in any factory can be exempted, if the benefits which are received by such security guard are not less favourable to such security guards as compared to the benefits provided by the Act of 1981 or the scheme framed thereunder. 14. Mr. Singhvi has invited our attention to the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court, P.B. Sawant, J. (as His Lordship then was) in the case of M/s. Tradesvel Security Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra 1982 Vol. LXXXIV B.L.R. 608. The learned single Judge has considered the entire scheme of the Act as well as the provisions of Section 23 of the Act prevailing at the relevant time. The learned single Judge, while disposing of the group of matters, concluded thus: “In the result, (1) the provisions of subsection(4) of S.3 of the Act are struck down insofar as they penalise the action taken by the principal employer or the Agency or the Agent to dismiss, discharge, retrench or otherwise terminate the appointment of the Security Guard prior to the coming into operation of the Scheme. (2) It is declared that the provisions of S. 23 of the Act are to be so read as to extend the exemption to be granted to the Security Guards also to be Agencies and the principal employers with whom they are and will be employed. (3) The rest of the provisions of the Act and of the Scheme are upheld as valid.” The learned single Judge has also considered the question of granting exemption under Section 23 of the Act and held thus: “It is also correct to say that the exemption can be availed of only at the initial stage and cannot be applied for once the Act becomes applicable to the factory or the establishment as the case may be. This is inevitable in the nature of things and no fault can be found with the said provision on that account.” The learned single Judge as such has not laid down any law to the effect that Section 23 of the Act is applicable only at the initial stage and it has no application later on. However, no doubt, observations have been made in this behalf in the judgment. However, no doubt, observations have been made in this behalf in the judgment. The aforesaid judgment was confirmed by the Division Bench in Appeal and special leave petition against that was dismissed by the Apex Court. In any case, since there is substantial amendment in the Act and the Scheme after 1996, the matter is required to be considered on the touchstone of the existing provisions of the Act as well as the Scheme. 15. Mr. Singhvi has also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court on the aforesaid aspect in the case of the Securities Board for Gr. Bombay and Thane Districts etc. vs. Security and Personnel Service Pvt. Ltd. and others AIR 1987 SC 1370 . It has been held by the Supreme Court that the exemption from operation of all or any of the provisions of the Act or the scheme framed thereunder is not in respect of an agency or an agent or even a factory or establishment but in respect of all or any class or classes of security guards employed in any factory or establishment or in any class or classes of factories or establishments. It has been held by the Supreme Court that from a reading of Section 23 of the Act in the light of Section 22, it does not follow that an agency could ask for exemption from the operation of the Act of all security guards employed through it. It has been held by the Supreme Court that in cases of this nature where the exemptions are sought from the operation of the Act, it is not necessary for the Government to state reasons for the same. In the aforesaid case, the point as to whether exemption under Section 23 can be granted only one time or not was not under consideration. 16. Mr. Singhvi then relied upon another decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4165 of 1990 (Maharashtra Rajya Suraksha Rakshak and General Kamgar Union vs. State of Maharashtra) decided on 23rd November, 1990. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case reported in AIR 1987 SC 1370 (supra), the Division Bench held that the exemption must be in respect of security guards employed in any factory or establishment or any class or classes of factories or establishments. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case reported in AIR 1987 SC 1370 (supra), the Division Bench held that the exemption must be in respect of security guards employed in any factory or establishment or any class or classes of factories or establishments. The Division Bench negatived the contention by observing that the private agencies employing security guards would be establishments within the meaning of the word ‘establishment’ used in Section 23 of the Act. In the aforesaid case, the Division Bench set aside the notification issued under Section 23 of the Act on the ground that there was total abdication of the functions of the Advisory Committee and the formation of opinion by the State Government without effective consultation with the Advisory Committee would also invalidate any notification issued under Section 23 of the Act. In the said case it has been held that there was no reference at all to any establishment or factory in which ultimately the Security Guards employed through the private agencies will be working. It was also found that the notification issued was clearly in favour of and in respect of private security agencies mentioned in Column-3 of Schedule appended to the said notification. In the aforesaid case, the Division Bench was not concerned with the question as to whether the exemption provision can be said to be only one time i.e. only at the time of application of the Act. 17. Mr. Singhvi then referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1658 of 1999 and other connected matters (M/s. Alsecure and Protection Services (I) & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and another) decided on 14th August, 2009. In the said case, the Division Bench has considered the issue as to whether after the enactment of the Central Act i.e. Private Security Agencies (Regulation), 2005 (“the Central Act”) whether the State Act will have any application. It has been held by the Division Bench in the said case that there is no repugnancy in the provisions of the Central Act and the State Act. It has been further held that the two legislations, one made by the Parliament and the other by the State operate in different fields. It has been held by the Division Bench in the said case that there is no repugnancy in the provisions of the Central Act and the State Act. It has been further held that the two legislations, one made by the Parliament and the other by the State operate in different fields. The Division Bench has also recorded the statement on behalf of the State Government that the security agencies who desire to get exemption from the provisions of the State Act can make an application to the State Government in accordance with law seeking exemption and the applications will be decided by the State Government within the time mentioned in the said order, in accordance with law. It has also been held that if exemptions are declined, the security agencies will be free to challenge such order in accordance with law and if exemptions are granted, the Board and the Trade Unions, if aggrieved by such exemption, were permitted to challenge the same in accordance with law. On the said aspect, the Division Bench has expressed no opinion. However, so far as the question as to whether the State Act can still be made applicable is a question which is considered by the Division Bench and that the same cannot be allowed to be reopened again. 18. Mr. Singhvi has further relied upon certain observations made by the Division Bench in paragraph 24 of the said judgment wherein it is observed that the exemption could be asked only in respect of private security guards who, on the date of the commencement of the Act in that particular region, were employed by the agency and deployed by the said agency in any factory or establishment and in the opinion of the State Government, those security guards were in the enjoyment of benefits which were on the whole not less favourable to such security guards than the benefits provided by or under this Act or any scheme made thereunder. However, it is required to be noted that the said question has been kept open and the parties are permitted to raise such an issue after the decision of the State Government in this behalf. 19. However, it is required to be noted that the said question has been kept open and the parties are permitted to raise such an issue after the decision of the State Government in this behalf. 19. Considering the Act and the scheme prevailing as on today and the aforesaid case laws on the subject, it is clear that the exemption can be given only to a particular class of security guards serving in a factory or establishment. Such an exemption cannot be granted to any security agency. Similarly, as per the provisions of the Act, the security guards deployed in a particular factory or establishment do not become the direct employees of such establishment or factory. Considering the provisions of the Act, it is clear that the provisions of Section 23 of the Act can still be said to be applicable and it is not possible to hold that the said provision is applicable only once at the time of application of the Act. Reading of various definitions and the language of Section 23 of the Act after the amendment in the year 1996, which has substantially changed the original provisions, in our view, exemption provision can still be invoked and we accordingly negative the contention of Mr. Singhvi that once the Act is applied in the cities of Brihanmumbai and Thane, the said provision thereafter has no application. It is not possible for us to give a restrictive meaning to the provisions of Section 23 of the Act. It is, however, required to be noted that at the time of granting exemptions, the Government is required to consider the material on record as to whether the security guards are enjoying the benefits which are on the whole not less favourable than the benefits provided by or under the Act or the scheme framed thereunder. Once the security guards are registered with the Board, the deployment of security guards vests with the Board and once they come in the common pool, they can be deployed and allotted through the Board and in such eventuality the private security agencies would not have any say thereafter. 20. We do not agree with the submission that only one time exemption is available and once the Act is made applicable, there is no scope for exemption under Section 23 of the Act. 20. We do not agree with the submission that only one time exemption is available and once the Act is made applicable, there is no scope for exemption under Section 23 of the Act. On reading of Section 23 of the Act, after amendment, it leaves hardly any doubt that such exemption can be given at any point of time provided the State Government is satisfied that the service conditions where the security guard is employed are not less fevourable then the one under the Act. 21. Once the security guard is registered with the Board, naturally, the service conditions are required to be regulated by the provisions of the Act and the scheme framed thereunder and thereafter he is required to be deployed with the principal employers as provided in the Act and the scheme. Exemption under Section 23 of the Act can be given only to those security guards who are in employment of the principal employer. In our view, such exemption is permissible at any point of time till the security guard is registered with the Board. In case exemption is granted to any particular set of security guards from the operation of the Act or the scheme, as long as such exemption is in operation, the provisions of the Act would not be applicable. It is for the concerned security guard to consider whether he would like to be registered with the Board and to go in common pool or to continue wherever he is by seeking necessary exemption under Section 23 of the Act. In the instant case, a perusal of the impugned notification discloses a total non-application of mind. The said notification does not disclose the material on which the subjective satisfaction has been recorded by the State Government. The exemption has been granted mechanically by merely reproducing the provisions of Section 23 of the Act. The effect of the non-application of mind can be seen from the fact that the words “from the operation of all or any of the provisions of the Act” are merely reproduced. Another aspect to be considered is that though it is by now well settled by the pronouncements of this Court as well as the Apex Court that exemption can be granted to security guards or class of security guards. Another aspect to be considered is that though it is by now well settled by the pronouncements of this Court as well as the Apex Court that exemption can be granted to security guards or class of security guards. In the instant case the exemption is granted to a security agency albeit for the security guards employed through by the principal employer i.e. Respondent No.4. The said exemption granted to the respondent No.3 security agency, therefore, militates against the purport and intent of the aid Act and is therefore required to be set aside. 22. As observed by the Division Bench in the judgment delivered in Writ Petition No. 4165 of 1990 (supra) that the consultation with the Advisory Committee should be meaningful and since there is nothing on record to suggest as to on what basis opinion has been formed by the State Government on the question that the service conditions of security guards who are seeking exemption are enjoying benefits which are more favourable than the benefits provided under the Act and the scheme. We, therefore, remit the matter to the State Government with a direction to take a fresh decision in this behalf, after considering the cogent and appropriate material available with it and on the basis of appropriate report from the Advisory Committee in this behalf, the State Government may pass appropriate order regarding granting exemption, after considering the aspect a to whether the security guards are enjoying the benefits which are not less favourable than the benefits provided under the Act or the Scheme. We accordingly set aside the notification so far as it relates to respondent no.4 herein, and direct the State to reconsider the issue of granting exemption in connection with the security guards deployed under respondent No.4. The State may accordingly pass fresh exemption order on such exemption application in the light of what is stated hereinabove. Though we are also conscious of the fact that for rejection of exemption reasons are not required but at least for granting exemption adequate reasons should be recorded especially when the Division in Writ Petition No. 4165 of 1990 (supra) held that there should be effective consultation with the Board. Though we are also conscious of the fact that for rejection of exemption reasons are not required but at least for granting exemption adequate reasons should be recorded especially when the Division in Writ Petition No. 4165 of 1990 (supra) held that there should be effective consultation with the Board. Since there is no appropriate material before us for finding as to in reality the exemption sought for on behalf of the concerned security guards is really based on appropriate data, we set aside the notification and direct the State Government to take a fresh decision on the applications which are already received for exemption de novo, keeping in view the observations made hereinabove. The decision may now be taken expeditiously and, in any case, within a period of one month from today. If the State is of the opinion that, on the basis of material available on record, the security guards having more favourable conditions as compared to service conditions in the Act, the State is free to take such decision for exemption under Section 23 of the Act. We accordingly set aside the impugned notification so far as it pertains to respondent No.4. We, however, make it clear that an application for exemption can only be in respect of the security guards or class of security guards and exemption can only be granted to them and not to any security agency. 23. So far as Writ Petition No. 4252 of 2009 is concerned, since we have set aside the notification dated 8th April, 2009 asking the State Government to decide the application for exemption de novo and expeditiously, so far as the question of registering security guards with the Board is concerned, the Board may now process such registration application in accordance with law. However, in view of the affidavit in reply filed by Shri Deepak Dattatraya Raikar, Secretary of the Security Guards Board and since the concerned security guards have failed to follow the procedure prescribed under the Scheme for registration by not submitting the necessary documents, we direct the petitioner union to submit necessary documents in connection with the concerned security guards such as attendance sheet/salary sheet and other details which show the period for which the concerned security guards are employed with the principal employer and also to fulfill the conditions of educational qualifications and physical fitness expeditiously and in any case within a period of two months from today. Since it is pointed out in the said reply that the Board has received approximately 16000 applications from the security guards seeking registration with the Board and naturally it may consume more time, we direct the Board to take appropriate decision in connection with registration of such security guards on whose behalf this petition is filed, within a period of two months from the receipt of necessary documents, if any. If any documents are required to be supplied, the same may be supplied by the petitioner within a period of one month from today and on receiving such documents, appropriate decision may be taken thereafter. If in the opinion of the petitioner, no documents are required to be submitted, then the Board may take appropriate decision after waiting for a period of one month, and thereafter may take appropriate decision within a period of two months thereafter. We may clarify that in the meanwhile if any notification is issued regarding exemption under Section 23 of the Act, as per the earlier direction, the application for registration would naturally be subject to the said notification, if any. 24. Rule is partly made absolute in the aforesaid terms in both petitions.