Are Security Guards Considered Workers Under the Factories Act 1948? Let's Discuss!

Dear Professionals, I would like to understand more about whether "Security Guards in the Factories will be covered under the definition of Workers or Not" under the Factories Act 1948/State Factories Rules. Thanks for your comments and suggestions.

Regards, Navneet Kumar

Security guards are workers. However, I believe they may fall under the classification of "employees employed in confidential positions" as outlined in section 64 of the Factories Act. Further comments are anticipated.

Dear Sir, Security guards are workers, but in Maharashtra, this category falls under the PASARA (Private Security Agencies Regulation Act) for ward and watch duties. If you need more clarity, please refer to the PASARA act.

Thanks,

Yuvraj

Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act 2005 is an Act to regulate security agencies by ensuring registration, but it does not provide for the service conditions of the persons employed in such agencies. This Act does not define a worker but only specifies who is a private security guard. If a security guard has any dispute relating to his employment or non-employment, he has to address it as per the Industrial Disputes Act only. Even the definition of a security guard is very narrow. The question posed is whether a security guard falls under the definition of a workman or not. This cannot be answered by merely examining the PSAR Act. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

My suggestion is that security guards will not fall under the category of "employees employed in a confidential position." Of course, the CSO - Chief Security Officer - may fall under this category.

Security Guards as Workmen
If the security guards are employees under the direct payroll of the company/factory, they also come under the definition of "workman" under the Factories Act. Instead, if they (security guards) are employed by a contractor - a security agency - then their service conditions are governed by the CLRA Act.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Most of the security agencies are covered under the State S&E Act. Therefore, the employees of those security agencies are also covered under the S&E Act of the State. At the same time, when security staff under an agency is deployed at any factory, they should follow the Factories Act.

As mentioned earlier, if the security staff is directly deployed by the Principal Employer (factory), then the security staff will be covered under the Factories Act—no doubt. However, there are hardly any organizations today where security staff are engaged directly on the payroll of the organization. It is almost always through a security agency.

In my opinion, if the security staff is engaged at a factory, they should be covered under the Factories Act, especially from the point of view of safety, environment, health, shifting duty, and in some organizations, managing the CEO's car, etc.

Regards, S K Bandyopadhyay (WB, Howrah) CEO-USD HR Solutions [Phone Number Removed For Privacy-Reasons] [Email Removed For Privacy Reasons] USD HR Solutions – To strive towards excellence with effort and integrity

Please go through the Factories Act 1948. As per the Act, a "worker" means a person employed directly or by or through any agency (including a contractor), with or without the knowledge of the principal employer, whether for remuneration or not, in any manufacturing process, or in cleaning any part of the machinery or premises used for a manufacturing process, or in any other kind of work incidental to or connected with the manufacturing process or the subject of the manufacturing process but does not include any member of the armed forces of the Union.

It is clear that said person is employed directly or by or through any agency, including a contractor. Therefore, a security guard will also be covered under the Factories Act.

Confidential Positions Under Kerala Factories Rules

The rule 109 of the Kerala Factories Rules provides for maintaining a list of employees holding confidential positions. The company can name any person who is expected to keep confidential records and information. The Kerala Factories Rules also provide a set of roles that are considered to be confidential in nature. Security Guards are also included in the list of persons holding confidential roles.

The objective of this rule is to ensure that those who are named in the list of employees holding confidential positions or positions of supervision or management are available to protect the men and property of the factory during industrial unrest. Security Officers, including Security Guards, are not expected to take part in any general strikes by the workers, similar to any other employee holding a supervisory or confidential position.

I believe that similar rules must exist under other State Rules as well.

In my opinion, security guards who are employed under The Maharashtra Private Security Guards Act (Guard Board) have their services governed by the Board in Maharashtra. Here, the security guards are those only who are employed by a contractor or by the Board itself. I suggest going through the Act for detailed information on this.

Regards, Prashant

Section 103 of the Factories Act 1948 raises a presumption that anyone found on the factory premises is employed in the factory unless proven otherwise. If security guards are deployed on the factory premises, this presumption will apply. Therefore, it would not be inaccurate to conclude that security guards are part of the factory.