Security guards’ board falsely implicated me: Kang
Security Guards Board, general manager of the Taj Hotels, has moved the Bombay High Court seeking quashing of a criminal compliant filed against him by the Security Guard Board.mumbai Updated: Oct 04, 2010 02:35 IST
Security Guards Board, general manager of the Taj Hotels, has moved the Bombay High Court seeking quashing of a criminal compliant filed against him by the Security Guard Board.
Karambir Kang lost his entire family during the 26/11 attacks. The Security Guards Board had lodged a complaint against the Indian Hotels Company Limited, popularly knows as the Taj, for hiring unregistered private security agencies.
The board mentioned Kang and Vidyadhar Vaidya, general manager, HRD, as accused in the complaint. According to the quashing application filed both, the inspector of Security Guards Board, VM Shevade, visited the Taj on April 4, 2009.
Rajesh Rahate, Taj’s security assistant, was present at the time and there were 99 guards on duty on that day from three different private security agencies.
After inspection, Shevade took Rahate’s signature on a report and suggested some changes. On May 2, 2009, Shevade issued a show-cause notice to the Taj asking it to comply with the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulations of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981. According to the Act, all private security agencies have to be registered with the Security Guard Board.
Shevade then lodged a complaint with the metropolitan court at Ballard Estate alleging that the Taj was principal employer of the private security guards. The compliant was filed for non-compliance of provision of the Act. Kang and Vaidya have challenged the complaint against them saying that they are not the principal employer of the private security guards. They have hired the private security agency, and hence the agency is their principal employer.
Besides, when the compliant was lodged in 2009, the private security agencies had got exemption form the high court from getting registered with the board. The issue is now pending in the Supreme Court.
Alleging they have been falsely implicated, they has sought quashing of the complaint against them.