JUDGMENT : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. The Hon'ble Apex Court on 02.12.2011 stayed the interim orders of this Court dated 08.09.2011 which directed Respondent No. 3 to provide work as Security Guards to the members of the petitioner association who were working with it on 30.01.2009, till final disposal of present writ petition. Writ Petition was to be disposed of within a period of three months thereafter and it appears that for one reason or the other, it could not be taken up. 2. We have accordingly heard Shri Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri S.P. Deshpande, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent No.1, Shri M.R. Pillai, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, Shri G.E. Moharir, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and Shri Amit Madiwale, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith. 3. Shri Mirza, learned counsel has invited our attention to the Scheme of the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1981 and 2002 Scheme framed thereunder. These statutory provisions hereinafter shall be referred to as 1981 Act or 2002 Scheme. His contention is, the Security Guards in employment of Respondent No. 3 as on 05.12.2002 could not have been discontinued and the steps to get them registered with respondent No. 2 Board should have been taken. Respondent No. 3 is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and though supposed to be a Model employer, was/ is changing contractors but retaining the very same Security Guards for years together. Members of petitioner No. 1 – Association have continued since 1996-97 under different contractors. Precisely to address this situation, 1981 Act was brought into force. That act has been extended to Nagpur on 05.12.2002 when 2002 Scheme also became applicable. Respondent No. 3 – Model Employer as also respondent Nos. 1 & 2 saw to it that exploitation of Security Guards continues and the members of petitioner No. 1 – association continue to suffer. He submits that respondent No. 2 – Board has avoided to discharge its obligation and remained satisfied by filing prosecution which has not been diligently prosecuted thereafter. 4. In all, there were 66 Guards whose data figures in list at Annexure B with the writ petition and out of them, persons named at Sr. Nos. 10, 27, 31 and 62 have expired. 4. In all, there were 66 Guards whose data figures in list at Annexure B with the writ petition and out of them, persons named at Sr. Nos. 10, 27, 31 and 62 have expired. Thus, remaining members named in the list at Annexure 'B' with details like their date of first appointment, were continuing in February 2009. As advised, Trade Union then approached the Industrial Court at Nagpur under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, but before any effective orders are passed therein by the Industrial Court on prayer for regularization, Respondent No. 3 as also the then contractor M/s. Kaloti Security Agency put an end to the services of the petitioners. Hence, in this peculiar situation, present writ petition came to be filed. 5. Before approaching this Court in present writ petition, Writ Petition No. 1732 of 2009 was filed pointing out inaction on the part of the respondent, in not implementing 1981 Act or 2002 Scheme, with a prayer for direction to Board to take appropriate steps in accordance with said statutory provisions. Writ Petition was disposed of with that direction. 6. The proceedings of a meeting conducted by respondent No. 2 – Board on 04.02.2009 are also pressed into service to show that facts mentioned supra are not in dispute. The meeting was attended by representative of respondent No. 3 – Corporation who pointed out need to appoint Security Guards sponsored by D.G.R. sponsored agency. Respondent No. 3 was given to understand and asked to implement legal provisions and also not to clear dues of M/s. Kaloti Security Agency. It was decided to include even new contractor in further negotiations. 7. In this background, Shri Mirza, learned counsel heavily relies upon the orders of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3479 of 2009 when the Security Board agreed to examine grievance of the petitioner association and, therefore, Writ Petition No. 3479 of 2009 was disposed of. By that date, Respondent No. 1 had already granted exemption under Section 23 of 1981 Act to Respondent No. 3 for a period of three years but that exemption order was suppressed. He invites our attention to the results of inspection of establishment of Respondent No. 3 by Respondent No. 2 on 14.08.2007 and 02.05.2009 as also 30.06.2011. By that date, Respondent No. 1 had already granted exemption under Section 23 of 1981 Act to Respondent No. 3 for a period of three years but that exemption order was suppressed. He invites our attention to the results of inspection of establishment of Respondent No. 3 by Respondent No. 2 on 14.08.2007 and 02.05.2009 as also 30.06.2011. He submits that these inspections brought on record, blatant disregard to provisions of law by Model Employer like respondent No. 3 and tacit consent thereto by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 is apparent. He states that in the light of these inspections, interim orders were passed in present matter on 08.09.2011 but those orders could not be implemented. He submits that prayer clause in writ petition contains a prayer to protect services of members of petitioner association and also for their reinstatement at the establishment of respondent No. 3 – Container Corporation of India Limited. According to him, attention of the Hon'ble Apex Court could not be invited to these prayer clauses. 8. Various inspections carried out by Inspector of respondent No. 2 – Board, notices issued to respondent No. 3 thereafter and an express direction on 05.04.2007 to it, not to terminate the services of any Security Guard are relied upon. He submits that on 03.08.2007, the petitioner association moved respondent No. 2 – Board and sought registration of its members in terms of 1981 Act and 2002 Scheme. On 27.09.2007, Respondent No. 3 agreed to comply with labour laws. On 28.05.2008, Respondent No. 2 – Board pointed out to respondent No. 3 its failure to abide by legal provisions. On 31.01.2009, the petitioners served a telegraphic notice on respondent No. 3 for not terminating the services of its members. Similar notice was given to M/s. Kaloti Security Services/ Agency, which had deployed members of the petitioner association with respondent No. 3. On 16.02.2009, the meeting was attended by respondent No. 3 as also by M/s Kaloti Security Agency and respondent No. 3 agreed to provide work to such of the earlier Security Guards who would be registered under 1981 Act. Respondent No. 2 – Board had on 06.02.2009 already cautioned respondent No. 3 in this respect. Thus, between 06.02.2009 and 16.02.2009, employment of members of petitioner association with Respondent No. 3 was brought to an end. Respondent No. 2 – Board had on 06.02.2009 already cautioned respondent No. 3 in this respect. Thus, between 06.02.2009 and 16.02.2009, employment of members of petitioner association with Respondent No. 3 was brought to an end. Readiness and willingness expressed by respondent No. 3 to provide work to 50% of Security Guards earlier employed by it, recorded by respondent No. 2 – Board in its meeting dated 17.02.2009, is also heavily relied upon. To explain the object and scope of 1981 Act, Shri Mirza, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of M/s. Alsecure & Protection Services (I) & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported at 2010 (1) ALL MR 292 and in The Security Guards Board for Greater Bombay & Thana District etc. vs. Security and Personnel Service Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., reported at AIR 1987 SC 1370 . 9. Inspection report dated 08.02.2013 produced by respondent No. 2 – Board is shown to this Court by him with submission that exemption given on 17.08.2009 for a period of three years had expired in August 2012 and even thereafter respondent No. 2 or respondent No. 3 had not taken any steps to abide by the provisions of law. 10. Shri Manoj Rajan, learned counsel has submitted that the members of petitioner association were working on 05.12.2002 with respondent No. 3 when 1981 Act or 2002 Scheme became applicable. The proceedings of various meetings conducted by Board and attended to by respondent No. 3 as also by workers are relied upon by him. He submits that respondent No. 2 – Board on 06.02.2009 expressly directed respondent No. 3 not to terminate services of members of petitioner association. Filing of Criminal prosecution vide Case No. 7728 of 2009 on 06.06.2009 by respondent No. 2 – Board shows that respondent No. 2 did take all steps within its powers. He urges that 1981 Act or 2002 Scheme does not empower respondent No. 2 – Board to take any other coercive action. As on 08.02.2013, unregistered Security Guards were found working. Respondent No. 3 has to provide work to members of the petitioner association, though they are unregistered. He contends that respondent No. 3 cannot be permitted to defeat the provisions of law. 11. Shri Deshpande, learned Additional Government Pleader submits that Security Guards at Sr. Nos. As on 08.02.2013, unregistered Security Guards were found working. Respondent No. 3 has to provide work to members of the petitioner association, though they are unregistered. He contends that respondent No. 3 cannot be permitted to defeat the provisions of law. 11. Shri Deshpande, learned Additional Government Pleader submits that Security Guards at Sr. Nos. 1 to 21 in the list at Annexure 'B' with writ petition were only working prior to 05.12.2002, others have joined after that date and hence cannot claim benefit of 1981 Act or 2002 Scheme. Our attention is also invited to various clauses of the Scheme to urge the obligation cast upon the agency providing security guards to respondent No. 3. Shri Deshpande, learned AGP points out that no direct relationship as employer and employee existed between the members of petitioner No. 1 – Association and respondent No. 3. He adds that M/s. Kaloti Security Agency, the then employer of security guards is not joined as party respondent by the petitioners. Respondent No. 4 is the subsequent security agency to whom work is given by Respondent No. 3 after termination of contract with M/s Kaloti Security Agency and members of petitioner association have got no relationship with the said respondent No. 4. 12. Shri Madiwale, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 states that respondent No. 4 has provided Guards to respondent No. 3 after 17.08.2009 i.e. after exemption. These Guards who are entitled to protection under 1981 Act or 2002 Scheme are not parties before this Court. He has relied upon reply affidavit filed by respondent No. 4 to demonstrate that exemption for 82 Security Guards who were ex-servicemen was sought and it was pending with Respondent No. 2 – Board for a period of more than six weeks before its grant. According to him, in this situation, no relief can be given to the members of petitioner No. 1 – association. We may here place on record that other pleas in reply of said respondent are not pressed into service by him. 13. Shri G.E. Moharir, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 – Corporation has submitted that M/s. Kaloti Security Agency which had deployed members of petitioner No. 1 – Association as its employees for security work with respondent No. 3 – Corporation was a necessary party and it is not impleaded. 13. Shri G.E. Moharir, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 – Corporation has submitted that M/s. Kaloti Security Agency which had deployed members of petitioner No. 1 – Association as its employees for security work with respondent No. 3 – Corporation was a necessary party and it is not impleaded. He further states that no member of petitioner No. 1 – association is registered as envisaged under 1981 Act or 2002 Scheme and hence the petition as filed by them is erroneous and misconceived. Petitioner No. 1 or then persons named at Annexure 'B' with the petition have not produced before this Court any resolution authorizing filing of writ petition of present nature. 14. Without prejudice, he points out that filing of ULP Complaint before the Industrial Court at Nagpur and its fate was suppressed by the petitioners. They had filed ULP Complaint No. 41 of 2009 and it was disposed of on 07.02.2009 as withdrawn. This adjudication operates as res judicata and, therefore, the present writ petition is not sustainable. 15. Clause 14(1)(a) as also clause 43 of 2002 Scheme are pressed into service with contention that as members of petitioner No. 1 association are not registered, they lack locus to maintain such challenge. 2002 Scheme mandates such guards to be registered under 1981 Act or then, they must have applied for registration under 2002 Scheme. Petition does not throw any light on this vital aspect. The qualifications required to be eligible for registration are also stipulated and none of the members of the petitioner association has demonstrated that he satisfies the same. 16. Shri Moharir, learned counsel submits that as contract with M/s. Kaloti Security Agency was coming to an end on 13.02.2009, the Chief General Manager of respondent No. 3 wrote to M/s. Kaloti Security Agency asking it to provide work to those security guards somewhere else. On 17.02.2009, M/s. Kaloti Security Agency informed respondent No. 3 that none of the security guards deployed by it on job with respondent No. 3 had reported back to it. As guards did not go back to M/s. Kaloti Security Agency, their prayer for making work available or for reinstatement cannot be looked into. 17. According to him, on 17.09.2010, respondent No. 2 – Board issued an advertisement and invited applications for preparing pool of Security Guards. Neither petitioner No. 1 – association nor its members responded. As guards did not go back to M/s. Kaloti Security Agency, their prayer for making work available or for reinstatement cannot be looked into. 17. According to him, on 17.09.2010, respondent No. 2 – Board issued an advertisement and invited applications for preparing pool of Security Guards. Neither petitioner No. 1 – association nor its members responded. In 2014, respondent No. 3, after due advertisement, awarded security and incidental service work to M/s. Basu Ashish Kumar Shishir Kumar Security Agency at Pune as it was one of the agencies sponsored by D.G.R. vide letter dated 14.02.2014. This contract was for a period of two years from 01.06.2014. This agency has sought exemption under Section 23 of 1981 Act by submitting suitable application to respondent No. 1 on 30.12.2014 but no orders have been passed upon it. Shri Moharir, learned counsel submits that in this situation, the claim of petitioner No. 1 – association or its members cannot be scrutinized at all in writ jurisdiction. 18. He also invites attention to clause 25 of 2002 Scheme to urge that as per its sub-clause (a), Secretary of responded No. 2 – Board has to allot security guards to the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that taking overall view of the matter, writ petition as drawn and filed is erroneous and misconceived. 19. Preliminary objection about suppression of previous ULP complaint filed by petitioner No. 1 association before the Industrial Court is misconceived. The prayers therein were only against respondent No. 3 Container Corporation and M/s Kaloti Security Agency. Members of the petitioner association had no relationship with the present respondent No. 4 which substituted respondent No. 3 as security agency. Industrial Court also could not have issued any directions to withdraw any unfair labour practice either to present respondent No. 4 or then to respondent No. 3 Container Corporation. Not only this respondent No. 2 Security Board could not have been subjected to its jurisdiction. It is settled law that when relationship as employer & employee is undisputed or indisputable, then only the Labour Court or the Industrial Court functioning under Maharashtra Recognition of the Trade Union & Prevention of the Unfair Labour Practices Act,1971 (MRTU & PULP Act, hereafter) can exercise the jurisdiction. Few important precedents of the Hon'ble Apex Court and of this High Court laying down this are Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. Vs. Few important precedents of the Hon'ble Apex Court and of this High Court laying down this are Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. Vs. Anant s/o Narhari Sonar, reported at (2014) 1 Mh. L.J. 601, Sarva Shramik Sangha vs. Messers Indian Smelting & Refining Company Ltd. Reported at 2003 (11) LJ SOFT (SC) 2 : AIR 2004 SC 269, Cipla Ltd. vs. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union, reported at 2001 (3) LJSOFT (SC) 125 : AIR 2001 SC 1165 , Vividha Kamgar Sabha vs. Kalyani Steels Pvt. Ltd., reported at AIR 2001 SC 1534 , Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation vs. Member, Industrial Court, Civil Lines, Nagpur & Ors., reported at 2006 (4) Mh. L.J. 21. Here the relationship was then and is in dispute even now, factually as also in law. In view of this position, Shri G.E. Moharir, learned counsel himself during the arguments was doubtful whether the Container Corporation could have been subjected to the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court in terms of schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. Moreover, after termination of the services, the Industrial Court ceases to have jurisdiction and cognizance thereof can be taken under Schedule IV item I by the Labour Court only. Termination is the event that was not in issue before the Industrial Court. Hence, the preliminary objection as raised is unsustainable. As petitioner No. 1 is a trade union which earlier did file a writ petition before this Court to implement the 1981 Act & 2002 Scheme, and it had espoused the cause of its members before the Industrial Court, before the Labour Officers and respondent No. 2 Security Board before filing the present writ petition; absence of plea regarding passing of a resolution by all its members or the executive to move present writ petition is not fatal. The cause sought to be redressed is genuine and the technical objection about lack of such resolution, raised by respondent No. 3 Container Corporation, therefore, has to fail. 20. Before proceeding further to evaluate the controversy on merits, we find it appropriate to note highlights of 1981 Act. Section 2(a) defines agency or agent and before us it is not in dispute that establishment like M/s. Kaloti Security Agency or respondent No. 4 in writ petition or M/s. Basu Ashish Kumar Shishir Kumar Security Agency at Pune are such “agencies” or “agents”. Section 2(a) defines agency or agent and before us it is not in dispute that establishment like M/s. Kaloti Security Agency or respondent No. 4 in writ petition or M/s. Basu Ashish Kumar Shishir Kumar Security Agency at Pune are such “agencies” or “agents”. Section 2(8) defines Principal employer to be the person incharge of ultimate control over all the affairs of the establishment like that of respondent No. 3. Section 3 is about preparation of scheme for ensuring regular employment of security guards. As per Section 3(4)(b), a Principal employer like respondent No. 3 or agency like respondent No. 4 are prohibited from dismissing, discharging or retrenching or otherwise terminating the appointment of any security guard after the date on which 1981 Act is brought into force. Such termination cannot be ordered merely for any of the reasons specified in the clause of this subsection. The bar operates during the period from the date of coming into force of 1981 enactment till the date of application of 2002 scheme to such employer and security guard. Thus, the law obliges Principal employer like respondent No. 3 and agency like respondent No. 4 not to terminate services of the members of petitioner No. 1 – association merely for the reason of employer's liability to register itself under 2002 Scheme or other liability likely to be cast on it thereunder or because of obligation of security guard to register himself under the Scheme. 21. Here, services are not terminated by any express order. After expiry of the tenure of contract awarded to M/s. Kaloti Security Agency and its substitution by respondent No. 4, M/s. Kaloti Security Agency claims that these guards did not report back to it. It claims that expiry of contract and non-availability of work was made known to them through a general notice. It is not in dispute that 1981 Act and 2002 Scheme framed therein has become applicable to the establishment of Principal employer (respondent No. 3) as also Security guards at annexure 'B' from 05.12.2002. Thus, thereafter for more than six years, the members of the petitioner association were allowed to continue as Security Guards without substituting them and without Respondent No. 3 obtaining registration as Principal employer or any security guard getting itself registered with respondent No. 2 – Board. Thus, thereafter for more than six years, the members of the petitioner association were allowed to continue as Security Guards without substituting them and without Respondent No. 3 obtaining registration as Principal employer or any security guard getting itself registered with respondent No. 2 – Board. Demand of petitioners' forced respondent No. 3 to proceed to obtain the exemption under S. 23 of 1981 Act. 22. Somewhat identical challenge and the impact of provisions of 1981 Act or 2002 Scheme are looked into in the judgments cited supra by Shri Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioners. However, we find it convenient to refer to the same little later. 23. In present matter, Respondent No. 2 – Board has conducted various meetings to resolve dispute between members of petitioner No. 1 – association and respondent No. 3. Those meetings were also attended to by respondent No. 3. M/s. Kaloti Security Agency always remained absent. Inspection of premises of respondent No. 3 was carried on by respondent No. 2 on 14.08.2007 as also on 02.05.2009. These inspections show employment of unregistered Security Guards by respondent No. 3. By these dates, respondent No. 3 – employer had also not obtained registration. Direction issued by respondent No. 2 on 06.02.2009 to respondent No. 3 not to terminate services of such security guards is also undisputed. The exemption is given thereafter i.e. on 17.08.2009. The legality or validity of this exemption has also been questioned before this Court. The petitioners have attempted to demonstrate that exemption is possible only when security guards already deployed are found to receive better wages and enjoy better service benefits. Exemption granted on 17.08.2009 does not show any such satisfaction reached by respondent No. 1. How arbitrarily and mechanical exemptions were granted has been discussed by Division Bench of this Court in its judgment in the case of M/s. Alsecure & Protection Services (I) & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (supra). The exemption is to be granted to the security guard and not to a principal employer. The arguments advanced before said Division Bench by the learned Advocate General also show that this error committed by the State Government was accepted and was not in dispute. The observations of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshak Aghadi & Anr. The arguments advanced before said Division Bench by the learned Advocate General also show that this error committed by the State Government was accepted and was not in dispute. The observations of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshak Aghadi & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported at 2002 II CLR 846 in paragraph 15 also throw light on the scope of exemption provision contained in Section 23 of the 1981 Act. 24. Instant Writ Petition filed before us on 03.04.2010 questions the order dated 17.08.2009. This order of exemption was for a period of three years and there is no exemption granted for the subsequent period. After exemption, inspection was carried out on 08.02.2013 and only unregistered security guards were found working. Thus, after direction, not to terminate members of petitioner – association issued on 06.02.2009, respondent No. 3 has continued to indulge in same tactics, did not get any of its security guards registered and also did not get itself registered as principal employer. There is no effort either by it or by respondent No. 4 to even urge that the service conditions of the guards deployed for security work were better than any other registered or exempted security guard. Breach of this requirement to provide better service conditions even during the period of exemption, is brought on record by respondent No. 2 Security Board itself. The provisions contained in Section 3 putting embargo upon right of employer to terminate and object behind the same, has thus been defeated in present matter. Not only this, object of 1981 Act and 2002 Scheme itself has been lost sight of. 25. The learned Additional GP has by inviting attention to dates of appointments mentioned in Annexure 'B' with writ petition pointed out that only first 21 persons were working before 05.12.2002 and Security Guards whose names appear at Sr. No. 22 till Sr. No. 62 started working with respondent No. 3 thereafter. Considering the object of 1981 Act or 2002 Scheme, the argument is misconceived. Chart shows that person at Sr. No. 38 – Dharampal Mahadev Bahadure claim that he joined as Security guard on 17.08.2002 i.e. prior to 05.12.2002. Till the principal employee registers itself or all unregistered security guards employed with it are registered or are sent to it by the Security Board, the said embargo has to operate. 26. Chart shows that person at Sr. No. 38 – Dharampal Mahadev Bahadure claim that he joined as Security guard on 17.08.2002 i.e. prior to 05.12.2002. Till the principal employee registers itself or all unregistered security guards employed with it are registered or are sent to it by the Security Board, the said embargo has to operate. 26. The order of exemption dated 17.08.2009 is in relation to particular i.e. named Security guards already then deployed with respondent No. 3. Thus, this has got no relevance with the date of coming into force of Scheme or 1981 Act in Nagpur area. That Scheme enjoined Security guards exempted under it to get themselves registered and fulfill conditions mentioned in Schedule II within a period of three months. The agency providing Security guards is respondent No. 4 before this Court and its name also figures in this exemption order. The order contains names of 58 Security guards. Schedule II is about conditions to be followed by agency (Respondent No. 4) and Principal employer (Respondent No. 3). Clause 7 therein is about filing of return. Neither respondent No. 2 nor respondent No. 3 or respondent No. 4 have pointed out that such returns have been filed by respondent No. 4 – agency. The provisions of clause 8 contemplate enrollment of agency with respondent No. 2 – Board. The dispute between parties was going on since long and this Court has passed orders in Writ Petition No. 1732 of 2009 on 23.04.2009 and in Writ Petition No. 3479 of 2009 on 25.09.2009, as mentioned supra. 27. The State Government is party to Writ Petition No. 1732 of 2009 as also to Writ Petition No. 3479 of 2009. The petitioners have made grievance after notice dated 21.01.2009 sent by their agency ie M/s. Kaloti Security Agency informing them that respondent No. 3 was likely to terminate its contract and thereafter it (M/s. Kaloti Security Agency) had no work for them. On 29.01.2009, Respondent No. 3 informed respondent No. 2 that from 01.02.2009, security work would be taken over by respondent No. 4. This letter shows that earlier contractor (M/s. Kaloti Security Agency) was advised to seek exemption under Section 23 of 1981 Act. On 29.01.2009, Respondent No. 3 informed respondent No. 2 that from 01.02.2009, security work would be taken over by respondent No. 4. This letter shows that earlier contractor (M/s. Kaloti Security Agency) was advised to seek exemption under Section 23 of 1981 Act. Respondent No. 3 has informed the Chairman of Respondent No. 2 – Board that new contractor would approach the concerned authorities as per letter dated 29.07.2008 sent by respondent No. 2 – Board for such exemption. The petitioners have reiterated their grievance thereafter on 31.01.2009. These developments are not in dispute. 28. Petitioner No. 1 – association has got itself registered on 17.04.2007 under The Trade Union Act, 1926, with 62 Security guards whose names figure in Annexure 'B'. Inspection of premises of respondent No. 3 on 03.04.2010 by Security Board is also not in dispute. The fact that 66 Security guards were being engaged since 1997 and M/s. Kaloti Security Agency, Nagpur, had provided those guards appears in inspection report dated 03.04.2007. The violation of clause 13 of the Scheme and commission of offence punishable under Clause 42 thereof is also noted therein. On 07.09.2006, Respondent No. 3 informed respondent No. 2 that M/s. Kaloti Security Agency had initiated process for exemption. On 20.09.2006, the petitioner Association complained to respondent No. 2 – Board and pointed out exploitation of its members. Respondent No. 2 – Board on 05.04.2007 wrote to respondent No. 3 and pointed out that it should obtain registration as Principal employer. On 03.08.2007, petitioner No. 1 – association applied to respondent No. 2 for enrolling guards with it. On 27.09.2007, respondent No. 3 wrote to respondent No. 2 and agreed to pay wage structure of the Nagpur District Security Guard Board with effect from 01.09.2007. On 02.10.2007, M/s. Kaloti Security Agency wrote to respondent No. 3 pointing out that wage structure offered by respondent No. 3 was not correct. It gave a chart containing so called correct wage structure (as per it)as annexure with this communication and sought approval to it from respondent No. 3. It also sought payment of service charges and service tax over and above that payment. On 14.02.2008, M/s. Kaloti Service Agency wrote to petitioner No. 1 on issues like payment of minimum wages, bonus, gratuity, uniform and other allowances. On 28.05.2008, Board again wrote to respondent No. 3 to abide by the provisions of 1981 Act. It also sought payment of service charges and service tax over and above that payment. On 14.02.2008, M/s. Kaloti Service Agency wrote to petitioner No. 1 on issues like payment of minimum wages, bonus, gratuity, uniform and other allowances. On 28.05.2008, Board again wrote to respondent No. 3 to abide by the provisions of 1981 Act. Respondent No. 3 in turn wrote to M/s. Kaloti Security Agency on 16.09.2008. These events, therefore, show that the members of petitioner association were demanding compliance with legal provisions since 2006. This demand continues even after respondent No. 3 put an end to its contract with M/s. Kaloti Security Agency. It is in this backdrop that precedents as noted supra needs to be looked into. 30. Respondent No. 3 got exemption on 17.08.2009 for a period of three years and thereafter it got itself registered on 07.09.2009. This exemption is for those who were already employed by security agency i.e. present respondent No. 4. This, therefore, does not take care of Security guards provided by M/s. Kaloti Security Agency. Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have not pointed out any exemption in relation to these petitioners whose employment was brought to an end in February, 2009. 31. Section 3(4)(b) of 1981 Act prohibits Principal employer or agency like M/s. Kaloti Security Agency from dismissing, discharging, retrenching or otherwise terminating appointment of any Security Guard and impact of this provision needs to be considered. The termination cannot be ordered merely by reason of the obligation on or the employer's liability to register itself under the Scheme or by reason of any other liability likely to be cast on it under such scheme or by reason of liability of Security guard to register himself under the Scheme. Thus, till compliance with the provisions of 1981 Act or 2002 Scheme is made or for period of one year, whichever occurs first, the termination cannot be ordered only with a view to defeat the object sought to be achieved by the 1981 Act or 2002 Scheme. 32. We have referred to various inspections supra. The inspections carried on on 03.04.2006 reveal deployment of 66 Guards by agency i.e. M/s. Kaloti Security Agency. 32. We have referred to various inspections supra. The inspections carried on on 03.04.2006 reveal deployment of 66 Guards by agency i.e. M/s. Kaloti Security Agency. The correspondence between parties thereafter reveals efforts made by the members of petitioner No. 1 – association to obtain registration and a direction on 04.02.2009 by Security Board to take back the petitioners whose services were terminated on 01.02.2009. On 16.02.2009, respondent No. 3 agreed to take back such employees. On 17.02.2009, it agreed to provide work to 50% of the Security guards. 33. The communication dated 06.02.2009 by respondent No. 2 – Board to respondent No. 3 shows that respondent No. 3 was engaging about 70 to 80 Security guards since past 10 – 12 years i.e. since 1977. It has also taken note of the fact that though contract with earlier Security agency was being terminated, new agency to whom contract was alloyed, used to continue same guards. This finding has been recorded by respondent No. 2 after perusal of records. It is also not in dispute. These events, therefore, establish that services of the petitioners were terminated because of insistence by them to grant them registration and to implement the provisions of 1981 Act and 2002 Scheme for their benefit. Because of this insistence, respondent No. 3 changed not only the agency but also employed fresh persons as Security guards. It applied for and got exemption under Section 23 of 1981 Act only because of this insistence of the petitioners. The last inspection shows that most of the Security guards on 08.02.2013 were unregistered. Thus, respondent No. 3 as also Security agency have taken disadvantage of the lethargy shown by respondent No. 2. Though technically respondent No. 3 got exemption on 17.08.2009, that exemption has lost its utility and it expired on 17.08.2012. The security guards then exempted or registered (if registered) were not found working on 08.02.2013. 34. The petitioners have questioned the order of exemption by pointing out that in law such an exemption could not have been allowed. Exemption needed to be after scrutiny of the records and comparison of the service conditions of the subject security guards as a class. A finding that exempted guards were better placed needed to be recorded. 34. The petitioners have questioned the order of exemption by pointing out that in law such an exemption could not have been allowed. Exemption needed to be after scrutiny of the records and comparison of the service conditions of the subject security guards as a class. A finding that exempted guards were better placed needed to be recorded. There could not have been indirectly a blanket exemption to the employer so as to exclude anybody and every body who would have joined as security guard in future. Period of exemption also should have been coterminus with the tenure of agreement with the agency to whom the contract was allotted. We are satisfied that the provision for exemption was only misused to the detriment of Security Guards by respondent No. 3. Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Security Guards Board v. Security & Personnel Service (P) Ltd., (supra) and of Division Bench of this Court in Alsecure & Protection Services (I) & ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (supra) clinch this aspect and there is no attempt before us to argue otherwise. We are referring to these judgments little later, in the body of this judgment. 35. Clause 14 of 2002 Scheme prescribes for registration of Security Guards. The eligibility and entitlement of members of petitioner No. 1 – Association for such registration should have been examined by respondent No. 2 – Board after the Act became applicable to respondent No. 3 and during said scrutiny bar under Section 3(4) would have operated and protected the employment of Security guards. This provision in a welfare Scheme & object behind it has been defeated. 36. On 17.09.2010, respondent No. 2 issued public advertisement for preparing a pool of Security Guards. Obviously, intention was to provide placement to such Security guards whose names were to be included in that pool as per the need of Principal employer. As members of Petitioner No. 1 – association were contesting the present matter and trying to obtain employment with respondent No. 3, it appears that they did not apply in response to such advertisement. On 17.02.2009, M/s. Kaloti Security Agency has informed respondent No. 3 that no Security Guard deployed by it with respondent No. 3 had reported back to it. It has informed respondent No. 3 that those Security Guards were attempting to procure placement as Guards with respondent No. 4. 37. On 17.02.2009, M/s. Kaloti Security Agency has informed respondent No. 3 that no Security Guard deployed by it with respondent No. 3 had reported back to it. It has informed respondent No. 3 that those Security Guards were attempting to procure placement as Guards with respondent No. 4. 37. Clause 25 of 2002 Scheme deals with obligations of registered Principal employer. Such registered principal employer cannot employ any person as Security Guard unless he is allotted to him by the Secretary of respondent No. 2 Board in accordance with the provisions of Clause 8(e). Clause 8(e) obliges the Secretary of Board to attempt to provide work to every Security Guard whose name figures in the Board pool. The advertisement dated 17.09.2010 was for preparing such a pool. 38. The petitioners have not argued that a relationship of employer and employee is created between them and respondent No. 3. Admittedly, their last such relationship was with M/s. Kaloti Security Agency. That Agency and, therefore, their employer are not party before this Court. The petitioners have not urged that Respondent No. 4 – new agency becomes their employer. 39. Here, brief mention of the three judgments relied upon by the petitioners is helpful. The object and purpose of 1981 Act or 2002 Scheme framed thereunder are elaborately examined in two judgments of this Court. Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court pondering on the issue is first one but then it evaluates 1981 Scheme which has been substituted by the 2002 Scheme. In view of these judgments, to avoid reiteration and prolixity, we find it unnecessary to dwell afresh on it. Those observations hold good even in these facts. 40. In the case of Alsecure & Protection Services (I) & ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported at 2010 (1) LJ SOFT 157–2010 (1) All MR 292 in paragraph 13, 14 & 15 point out the scope of the 1981 Act & 2002 Scheme thereunder. It unequivocally lays down that though an agency or agent supplying the guards may apply to the Government for grant of exemption, the exemption to be granted by the Government is not to any agency or agent, but only of Security Guards employed in a factory or establishments or a class or classes of factory or establishments. It unequivocally lays down that though an agency or agent supplying the guards may apply to the Government for grant of exemption, the exemption to be granted by the Government is not to any agency or agent, but only of Security Guards employed in a factory or establishments or a class or classes of factory or establishments. This division bench also while considering the Section 3 of the 1981 Act, comments upon the transitory provision therein which protects guards like guards before us, from the termination till they are considered for registration. Clause 28 of the 2002 Scheme lays down that a registered principal employer can engage security guards either registered with the Board or security guards of the employer agency registered with the Board or he may employ security guards directly who will be his employee. Had respondent no. 3 got itself registered within the reasonable time after 5.12.2002, the guards at Annexure 'B' would not have been required to loose their jobs or the respondent No. 4 would not have introduced strangers. This division bench draws support from the 1987 Supreme Court judgment (mentioned below) as also from an earlier division bench judgment in the case of Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshak Aghadi vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2002 II CLR 846 which consider 1981 Act & 1981 Scheme. 41. To find out the relief which can be extended to the guards whose names figure in Annexure 'B' with the writ petition, some portions of the 1987 precedent need attention. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Security Guards Board v. Security & Personnel Service (P) Ltd., reported at (1987) 3 SCC 413 . There, in paragraph 8, Hon'ble Court observes “8. One of the submissions of the learned counsel was that if Section 23 was read in the light of Section 22 it would follow that an agency could ask for exemption from the operation of the Act of all Security Guards employed through them. We do not see how that follows. All that Section 22 provides in effect is that the rights or privileges of any registered Security Guard shall not be altered to his detriment. We do not see how that follows. All that Section 22 provides in effect is that the rights or privileges of any registered Security Guard shall not be altered to his detriment. It only means that if hitherto as an employee of the agency, the terms and conditions of his services were more attractive on the whole than the terms and conditions of service offered by the Act and the Scheme under the factory or establishment, the original terms and conditions of service will be preserved and become applicable to their service under the factory or establishment. It was submitted by the learned counsel that the Act and the Scheme did not provide for termination of the contract of employment between the agency and the Security Guard or for the transfer of the services of the Security Guards from the employment of the agency to that of the factory or establishment. We do not agree with the submission. By necessary implication, the services of the Security Guards will stand transferred to the service of the factory or establishment on allotment to it by the Board. It is in that fashion, among other things, that security of service is secured to the Security Guards.” 42. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Security Guards Board v. Security & Personnel Service (P) Ltd. (supra) also indicates how the Hon'ble Apex Court approached the question of postings/ placement of the guards. In para 11, Hon'ble Apex Court observes “11. On behalf of some of the Security Guards a writ petition was filed in Bombay High Court and it has been withdrawn to this Court to be disposed of along with the appeals. One of the contentions raised in the writ petition filed by the workmen is that the Scheme does not offer any continuity or guarantee of employment to those who are already working in factories or establishments having been engaged through agencies. We are assured by Shri K.K. Singhvi, learned counsel for the Board that every individual registered Security Guard who was previously working in a factory or establishment will be allotted to the same factory or establishment and if the total package of the terms and conditions of his service were better than the terms and conditions of service offered by the Board such person would be employed on the previous terms and conditions of service. The assurance of Shri Singhvi is made part of our order. The learned counsel for the workmen also urged that there was an insistence upon payment of “captivation fee” and sponsoring by a union before a Security Guard was registered under the Scheme. This of course is not permissible under the Act or the Scheme and whoever has been so insisting will desist from doing so.” These observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court also regulate the controversy regarding the placement of the guards in Annexure 'B' and apply after they are registered as security guards with respondent No. 2 Security Board. Facts noticed by respondent No. 2 during inspections are not denied by the respondent No. 3 Corporation. Thus, after expiry of the exemption and though registered as a principal employer, the Corporation has avoided to provide work only to the registered security guards and continued mostly new and unregistered persons as the security guards. It has flouted the mandate of 1981 Act & 2002 Scheme with impunity by continuing to provide the security work to the unregistered guards. Even now, it is not its case that only registered security guards are working with it. Respondent No. 2 Security Board also does not stipulate so. 43. While considering this judgment, 1981 Act & 2002 Scheme in Krantikari Suraksha Rakshak Sanghatana v. BSNL, (2008) 10 SCC 166 , the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 24 & 25 records important findings which are “24. Apart from the fact that in several earlier petitions the appellant Union had unsuccessfully come up with very same pleas and the orders had attained finality, the issue cannot be permitted to be indirectly raised in the manner done. The Act and the schemes make it clear that they apply only to security guards who are “pool security guards”. As stated earlier the Act and the scheme clearly constitute a complete and selfcontained code which covers private security guards. Section 1(4) of the Act and various provisions of the 1981 and 2002 Schemes make it clear that the arguments that the guard once allotted with the principal employer he becomes the direct and regular employee of the principal employer, is without any substance. 25. Section 1(4) of the Act and various provisions of the 1981 and 2002 Schemes make it clear that the arguments that the guard once allotted with the principal employer he becomes the direct and regular employee of the principal employer, is without any substance. 25. As rightly noted by the High Court the provisions of the Act and the statute make it clear that the Board’s power of allotment carries with it the implicit and inherent power to recall, reallot and transfer a guard from one principal employer to another. It needs no emphasis that the power to appoint carried with it the inherent power to terminate. Therefore, the power to allot necessarily carries with it the inherent power to reallot or cancel the allotment. It is also seen that both under the 1981 and 2002 Schemes certain clauses provide for transfer of guards. It is also significant that under both the schemes there is provision for continued supervision, control, disciplinary powers and powers of termination vested in the Board.” 44. The members of the petitioner association could have claimed relief of reinstatement only with the M/s Kaloti Security Agency & not against respondent No. 3 Corporation or respondent No. 2 Security Board. But then the transitory provisions contained in S. 3(4) and obligations flowing therefrom and directions not to terminate members of petitioner No. 1 association or to get itself registered issued to respondent No. 3 Container Corporation by respondent No. 2 Security Board could not have been breached by it. This Court, in this situation, has to mould the relief to see that the wrong doers do not capitalize on their wrongs and the depraved do not gain to the disadvantage of the deprived guards. Eligible Security Guards can not be denied the benefits to which they are legally entitled. The record shows inspections of the establishment of the Container Corporation in 1997, on 14.08.2007, 02.05.2009, 30.06.2011 and lastly on 08.02.2013. Inspection carried on 30.06.2011 is during the period of exemption and it also shows deployment of only 13 exempted security guards out of total 58. Thus, it was easily possible and also expected of respondent No.3 to obey the mandate of 1981 Act & 2002 Scheme. Inspection carried on 30.06.2011 is during the period of exemption and it also shows deployment of only 13 exempted security guards out of total 58. Thus, it was easily possible and also expected of respondent No.3 to obey the mandate of 1981 Act & 2002 Scheme. However, on the other hand, the petitioner No. 1 association or its members did not report back to their agency i.e. M/s Kaloti Security Agency to show the readiness and willingness to work. Respondent No. 3 does not become its employer and relief of the reinstatement with continuity or the back wages could have been claimed only against that agency. But then they have attempted to obtain their work as guard back with respondent No. 3. They also had approached Industrial Court under Maharashtra Recognition of the Trade Union & Prevention of the Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, for protecting their job and for regularization. But after withdrawal from the contract by M/s Kaloti Security Agency and introduction of present respondent No. 4 by respondent No. 3 Corporation as new security agency, they have approached this Court. They never sought any direction to respondent No. 2 Board to examine them to find out their eligibility for the registration as Security Guards. 45. In this situation, until and unless the petitioners first get themselves registered as Security Guards with respondent No. 2 and their name is born on pool mentioned supra, no relief can be given to them. However, had respondent No. 3 obeyed the provisions of law, their services would not have been terminated and they could have continued as Security Guards with respondent No. 3 or then on some other establishment where they could have been deployed by their employer. In any case, had their names been included in pool, they could have been posted somewhere else by the Secretary of the Board. We, therefore, find a Model employer like respondent No. 3 at fault and guilty of not implementing the provisions of Welfare legislation. It appears that even today only unregistered security guards are working with respondent No. 3. 46. We direct respondent No. 2 – Board to consider eligibility and entitlement of willing members of petitioner No. 1 – association whose names figure in Annexure 'B' with this petition for registration as Security Guards within next eight weeks. It appears that even today only unregistered security guards are working with respondent No. 3. 46. We direct respondent No. 2 – Board to consider eligibility and entitlement of willing members of petitioner No. 1 – association whose names figure in Annexure 'B' with this petition for registration as Security Guards within next eight weeks. The names of such of them as are eligible shall be included in pool maintained under Rule 8(e) of 2002 Scheme and respondent No. 2 shall thereafter post and place them with respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 shall abide by such directions of the Secretary of respondent No. 2 Board immediately. 47. Due to passage of time, some members of petitioner No. 1 – Association whose names figure in Annexure 'A' may have become ineligible for such registration or may be found not fit. In this situation, we direct respondent No. 3 to pay to them their salary of one year as compensation. 48. With these directions, we partly allow this writ petition. Rule made absolute accordingly.