Page No.# 1/14 GAHC010132712024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3415/2024 OUT SOURCED SECURITY WORKERS ASSOCIATION AND ANR APGCL, REGISTER NO-2579. HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT NAMRUP THERMAL POWER STATION, P.O- NTPS, PIN-786622, DIST- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, AND DULY REP. BY KRISHNA BORAH, R/O-BARBIL BABIJA, P.O- RATNAPUR MIRI, P.S- JENGRAIMUKH, DIST- MAJULI, ASSAM, PIN-785105 2: KRISHNA BORAH R/O-BARBIL BABIJA P.O- RATNAPUR MIRI P.S- JENGRAIMUKH DIST- MAJULI ASSAM PIN-78510 VERSUS ASSAM POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED AND 7 ORS REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, BIJULEE BHAWAN, 3RD FLOOR, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI, PIN-781001 2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED BIJULEE BHAWAN 3RD FLOOR PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI PIN-781001 Page No.# 2/14 ASSAM 3:GENERAL MANAGER HR ASSAM POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED BIJULEE BHAWAN 3RD FLOOR PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI PIN-781001 ASSAM 4:CHIEF SECURITY OFFICER ASSAM POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED BIJULEE BHAWAN 3RD FLOOR PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI PIN-781001 ASSAM 5:THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER CUM REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS ASSAM O/O THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER GOPINATH NAGAR GUWAHATI-16 ASSAM 6:THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER DIBRUGARH P.O P.S AND DIST- DIBRUGARH PIN-786001 ASSAM 7:THE LABOUR INSPECTOR DIBRUGARH P.O P.S AND DIST- DIBRUGARH PIN-786001 ASSAM 8:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER Page No.# 3/14 DIBRUGARH PIN-786001 ASSAM 9:M/S VANGUARD SECURITY SERVICES AND SYSTEMS SARMA AND SARMA MARKET OPP. GUWAHATI COMMERCE COLLEGE R.G. BARUAH ROAD GUWAHATI-781003 DIST. -KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 10:NORTH EAST SECURITY SERVICES PVT. LTD. THAKURIA BUILDING SURUJ NAGAR G.S ROAD SIXMILE P.O- KHANAPARA GUWAHATI-22 ASSA B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocates for the petitioner(s) : Mr. M Barman Advocates for the respondent(s) : Mr. D Nath, Standing Counsel APGCL Mr. CKS Baruah, Govt. Advocate, Assam Date on which Judgment is reserved: NA Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 27.01.2026 Whether the Pronouncement is of the : NA Operative Part of the Judgment Whether the Full Judgment has been : Yes Pronounced Page No.# 4/14 JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL) Heard Mr. M Barman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. I have also heard Mr. D Nath, the learned Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of the Assam Power Generation Corporation Ltd. (for short, the APGCL); Mr. CKS Baruah, the learned Govt. Advocate, Assam, who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.5, 6, 7 and 8 and Mr. DK Roy, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent No.9. None appears on behalf of the respondent No.10 inspite of service being effected. 2. The petitioner No.1 is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The petitioner No.2 is the President of the said Trade Union. The petitioners contend that its members are all out- sourced Security Guards employed in the APGCL. It is the further case of the petitioner that the APGCL in order to provide security to its various installations out-sources the Security Guards by a tender process amongst Government Registered Security Agencies. The members of the petitioner No.1 are employed by this Government Registered Security Agencies on the basis of a contract entered into by this Government Registered Security Agencies with APGCL. 3. At the time when the writ petition was filed, on 27.06.2024, the grievance of the writ petitioners were that the respondent No.9 did not pay the dues to the members of the petitioner No.1 Union. This Page No.# 5/14 grievance, however, no longer survives to be adjudicated in a writ proceedings, taking into account the stand of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, who claim that the respondent No.9 was duly paid all the dues and the respondent No.9 on affidavit stated that the members of the petitioners’ Union have been paid their dues. Such dispute, therefore, requires elaborate adjudication on the basis of documentary and oral evidence, which can only be done before an appropriate forum competent to adjudicate such factual disputes. 4. Be that as it may, the dispute presently, which requires an adjudication is regarding certain onerous terms being imposed upon by the respondent No.10 upon the members of the Petitioners so that they can seek employment under the Respondent No.10. 5. It is the submission of Mr. M Barman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that though the members of the petitioner Union have been called for interview and have been selected provisionally, but they have been asked to enter into an agreement containing unconstitutional terms and, more particularly, reference has been drawn to Clauses 9, 11 and 12 which not only violate the mandate of Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution, but also violate Article 23 of the Constitution. The learned counsel further submits that Clause 12 is even contrary to the tender conditions which were set out by the APGCL in its NIT dated 06.06.2023 and, more Page No.# 6/14 particularly, to Clause 22. 6. This Court has heard Mr. D. Nath, the learned Standing Counsel of the APGCL, who submits that the terms of the employment between the respondent No.10 and its employers are to be regulated as per their employer employee relationship to which APGCL have no say. He, however, submits that as the APGCL is a State, within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, APGCL is committed towards upholding the rights of all employees / workers and ensuring compliance to labour laws of the land. He submitted that APGCL can look into certain aspect, if there is any infraction to the Constitutional norms as well as the terms of the Notice Inviting Tender dated 06.06.2023. He, however, submits that the same should only be applicable to those members of the petitioners’ Union, who are presently under employment with the respondent No.10. 7. This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as the respondents, except the respondent No.10, who chose not to appear inspite of notice having been effected. 8. The grievance of the members of the petitioners’ Union pertains to Clauses 9, 11 and 12 in the Agreement. The same being relevant are reproduced hereinunder: Page No.# 7/14 “9. On Admission on purely Temporary basis to the NESS Pvt. Ltd. as its worker/employer no body can form or can take part in any association as per company Rule and if they do so, they shall be immediately expelled from the Company. 11. Each selected worker/employee to he joined newly shall have to deposit an amount equivalent to one month wage Salary to the Company to meet the admin administration/Registration charges before joining. Thereafter in next subsequent years (2nd and 3rd year), amount of such fees have to be deposited at the reduced rate of 50% of the one month wage salary subject to continuation of the service. 12. The Security Personnel must have two Complete sets of Uniforms at all the times and these shall be supplied by the Company to its workers/employee on payment of its Price on actual as and when required.” 9. A perusal of the above-quoted clauses, more particularly Clause 9 shows that an employee cannot form or take part in any Association as per Company Rule and if they do so they shall be immediately expelled from the Company. 10. At this stage, this Court duly takes note of Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution which confers rights upon every citizen of the Country to form Associations or Unions or Co-operative Societies and the reasonable restrictions which can be imposed in terms with Article 19(4) of the Constitution is only to the extent when such rights imposes or prevents the State from making any law in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order or morality. It is relevant to note that the members of the petitioner Union even prior to participating in the recruitment process initiated by the respondent Page No.# 8/14 No.10 or for that matter, even before issuance of the Notice Inviting Tender dated 06.06.2023, are already members of the petitioner No.1 Union. 11. It is pertinent to observe that the respondent APGCL in order to safeguard its installations instead of engaging Security Guards by itself, had sought to outsource such guarding of installation through registered Government Agencies. APGCL cannot permit its contractor i.e. the Respondent No.10 to insert certain clauses which would be contrary to the fundamental rights conferred by the Constitution upon each citizen of India. It is observed that when the APGCL being a State cannot impose conditions by itself, such onerous terms cannot be permitted to be incorporated through its Contractor. The Respondent No.10 apparently being a Government registered Security Agency also cannot impose conditions which take away the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. 12. It is, therefore, the opinion of this Court that Clause 9 of the Agreement prima facie appears to be contrary to Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. 13. Now let this Court take up Clause 11 as quoted above. A perusal of the said Clause reveals that the selected worker/ employee, when he/she joins, would have to deposit an amount equivalent to one Page No.# 9/14 month's salary to the Respondent No.10 to meet the administration/registration charges before joining. 14. It is relevant at this stage to note that from the materials on record and more particularly the Notice Inviting Tender dated 06.06.2023, it is seen that upon making payment to the employees by the Government Registered Security Agency, the same would be reimbursed by the APGCL. At this stage, this Court finds it relevant to quote some of the General Terms and Conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender dated 06.06.2023. Clauses 3, 13, 14 and 15 being relevant are quoted herein below: “3. The successful bidder shall pay rates and wages as per existing rules under Minimum Wages Act. It shall be his responsibility to ensure that he pays his workmen wages which are not lower than the minimum wages as prescribed from time to time by State Government. The bidders therefore should quote the margin amount separately besides quoting other statutory payments such as Minimum pay, EPF, ESI, Bonus etc. as applicable. 13. The contractor/firm shall give the wage slips of monthly wages and individual EPF account number to the workmen engaged by him. It should be noted that while issuing the wages slips of monthly payment to his workmen, EPF contribution deducted should also be reflected. Further, the contractor should ensure payment to his workmen in their personal accounts to be opened in their names in Nationalized Bank/Scheduled Bank only. 14. The Contractor shall be wholly responsible regarding the minimum wage payment. As and when the minimum wages rate/VDA is changed by the Govt. of Assam, the Contractor shall pay the revised rate to his workers as on the date and shall apply for reimbursement of the expenditure by raising a separate bill. In additions to the Page No.# 10/14 monthly salary, the contractor shall also have to extend statutory benefits provided under Employees Provident Fund & Misc. (Prov.) Act, 1952, Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 and other benefits in terms of the applicable Labour Laws. Failure to do so would lead to termination of the contract immediately. 15. The Contractor shall be responsible for fulfilling the requirements of all statutory provisions of relevant enactments viz. The Minimum Wages Act, 1948, The Payment of Wages Act, 1936, The Contract Labor (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 as amended from time to time and all other labour enactments at his own risk and cost in respect of all security guards employed by him and keep APGCL indemnified for any action brought against it for any violation/non-compliance of any of the provisions of any of the acts etc.” A perusal of the above quoted Clauses reveal that the Respondent No.10 would be responsible for making payment of salary which would be not below the minimum wages declared by the Government of Assam. The salary shall also include the VDA. Apart from that, the Respondent No.10 shall also be responsible for confirming with the various labour laws. Confirming with the various labour laws would include that the Respondent No.10 shall not indulge in unfair labour practice. 15. Now coming to Clause 11, it would show that the employees even before receiving their first salary have to deposit one month salary to the Respondent No.10. Our country is a Welfare State. APGCL is also a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Under such circumstances, APGCL not only is required to Page No.# 11/14 see the working conditions of its employees, but also those working for them through outsourcing are also meted with proper, fair and reasonable conditions of service. In the instant case as stated above by virtue of Clause 11 of the Agreement, an onerous condition is imposed to deposit the first month salary even prior to getting salary by the employees. It prima facie appears to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and also amounts to unfair labour practice. 16. This Court finds it now relevant to take note of Clause 12, which stipulates that the security personnel must have two complete sets of uniforms at all times and these would be supplied by the company to its workers/employees on payments of its price on actual as and when required. 17. At this stage, this Court finds it also pertinent to take note of the Notice Inviting Tender dated 06.06.2023 issued by the APGCL. Clause 22 is of relevance taking into account its correlation to Clause 12 of the Agreement. Clause 22 of the said Notice Inviting Tender is reproduced hereinunder: “22. The contractor/firm shall have to provide initially 2 (two) pairs of uniform of their own and livery items such as ammunition boot, Web belt, army cut anklet, barret caps, whistle, Whistle cord, Hunting Shoes, P.T. Shoes, Khukry, Sticks, torch lights etc. The seasonal livery items such as jerseys, jackets in winter and raincoat in monsoon shall be provided by the firm. The agency shall also have to provide mosquito net, and blanket to the security personnel, supplied by them. The cost of the above livery items Page No.# 12/14 shall be borne by the contractor and the APGCL shall have no liability what-so ever in this account. The colour and the pattern of the uniform should not be identical to those of APGCL Security personnel. However, the cost against the supplied livery items should not be deducted from the wages of the Security Guards.” 18. From a perusal of the above-quoted clause, it is seen that it is the duty imposed upon the contractor/firm to provide two pairs of uniforms. A perusal of the above-quoted clause categorically reveals what are the livery items i.e. Ammunition Boot, Web Belt, Army Cut Ankle, Barret Caps, Whistle, Whistle Cord, Hunting Shoes, P.T. Shoes, Khukry, Sticks, Torch lights etc. It further reveals that the seasonal livery items such as Jerseys, Jackets in winter and Raincoat in monsoon shall be provided by the firm. Further to that, it is also mentioned that the cost against the supplied livery items should not be deducted from the wages of the Security Guards. The question, therefore, arises as to whether in view of Clause 22 of the NIT dated 06.06.2023, can the Respondent No. 10 charge its employees with the cost of the uniform. It is the opinion of this Court that this aspect should be looked into by APGCL and appropriate corrective measures be directed upon the respondent No.10 to be taken. 19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition, therefore, stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i). The petitioners herein are directed to submit a representation to the respondent APGCL and the respondent Page No.# 13/14 Nos.2 and 3 are specifically directed to look into the said representation only insofar as the grievance of the petitioners as regards Clauses 9, 11 and 12 are concerned and taking into account the observations made hereinabove. (ii). This Court has duly perused the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioners dated 24.11.2025 and the list of Security Guards deployed/empanelled dated 21.08.2024 enclosed to the said affidavit-in-reply. From a perusal of the said documents/list, it appears that some of the persons have been deployed while others have not. The reason as it appears from the very list is non-furnishing of the Agreement. (iii). Accordingly, this Court, therefore, directs that upon the decision so taken by the APGCL on the representation, the APGCL shall pass appropriate directions upon the respondent No.10 to take appropriate steps for engaging those members of the petitioner Union who have been empanelled, but not deployed for want of submitting the Agreements in the various installations of the respondent No.2. (iv). The entire exercise be carried out within a period of 3(three) months from the date a certified copy of this judgment is served upon the respondent No.2. (v). In the foregoing paragraphs of the instant judgment, this Court opined that it would not be possible to Page No.# 14/14 enter in the disputed questions of fact as regards the dues claimed by the members of the petitioner Union from the respondent No. 9. This Court grants liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum claiming, such dues, if so permissible under law. 20. With the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Shivani Gautam Digitally signed by Shivani Gautam Date: 2026.02.02 13:50:46 +05'30'