Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010308002019 2025:GAU-AS:14025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/9296/2019 M/S. BOGIDHOLA TEA AND TRADING CO. (P) LTD. AND ANR. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1912, HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT BOGIDHOLA T.E., P.O.- LETEKUJAN- 785613, GOLAGHAT, ASSAM AND ITS ADMINISTRATIVE HEAD OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR, PARAG BHAWAN, G.S. ROAD, ULUBARI, GHY.- 781007, ASSAM. 2: SAILENDRA SINGH MANAGER (HEAD OFFICE) R/O- HOUSE NO. 11 1ST BYE LANE USHA NAGAR DISPUR GHY- 781006 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS. REP. BY THE CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GHY.-06 2:THE LABOUR AND WELFARE DEPTT. GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GHY.- 781006 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECY. 3:THE DY. SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM LABOUR AND WELFARE DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-06. 4:THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER ASSAM O/O. THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER GOPINATH NAGAR GHY.- 16 Page No.# 2/5 ASSAM. 5:THE DY. COMMISSIONER O/O. THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER GOPINATH NAGAR GHY.- 781016 ASSAM. 6:THE ASSTT. LABOUR COMMISSIONER GOLAGHAT O/O- THE ASSTT. LABOUR COMMISSIONER GOLAGHAT- 785621. 7:THE SUPDT. OF POLICE O/O. THE SUPDT. OF POLICE GOLAGHAT ASSAM- 785621. 8:THE DY. COMMISSIONER GOLAGHAT O/O. THE DY. COMMISSIONER GOLAGHAT ASSAM- 785621. 9:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE NUMALIGARH POLICE OUTPOST UNDER GOLAGHAT POLICE STATION GOLAGHAT ASSAM- 785621 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G N SAHEWALLA, MD ASLAM,MR D SENAPATI,MR. A CHETIA,MS. S KATAKEY Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 22.10.2025 Heard Mr G N Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr H K Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms U Das, learned Additional Page No.# 3/5 Senior Government Advocate, appearing for all the respondents. 2. The primary grievance raised in this writ petition was that the petitioner, which is a tea estate, had been under illegal strike in gross violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, since 13.12.2017 and despite several approaches having been made to the State respondents, no steps were taken to ensure the prohibition of the illegal strike and the petitioner/tea estate remained closed, which led to heavy financial losses along with other difficulties. Situated thus, the petitioner had filed this writ petition on 11.12.2019, praying for a direction to the respondent authorities to exercise powers vested under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for issuance of appropriate orders under Section 10 (3) of the said Act, prohibiting the continuance of the illegal and lightning strike commenced in the Bogidhola Tea Estate, w.e.f. 13.12.2017, along with other ancillary prayers. During the pendency of this litigation, the Government of Assam in the Labour Welfare Department, Dispur, had issued a notification bearing GLR.9/2018/30, dated 4th of February, 2020, prohibiting the continuance of lock out declared by the management of Bogidhola Tea Estate and also prohibited the continued stoppage of work, which tantamount to strike by a fraction of the workers of the concerned tea estate with immediate effect. 3. Subsequent thereto, the respondents have filed their affidavit-in-opposition and the petitioner has also filed the reply to such response. 4. When the matter was taken up today, Ms U Das, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, has produced before this Court, the instructions dated 10.09.2025, issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, (DSB), Golaghat, Assam, to the effect that it remains a fact that there are disturbances in the running of the tea-estate and on more than one occasion, there have been incidents, which have required the Police authorities to investigate and take timely intervention measures. A copy of the said instructions has also been supplied to Mr G N Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, who at this stage, submits that although the declaration Page No.# 4/5 under Section 10 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has been issued, no further steps have been taken by the respondent authorities to ensure that the tea estate functions without threat of criminal activity. He, accordingly, prays that appropriate directions may be issued to the respondent authorities to ensure that miscreants and other anti- social elements do not pose a threat to the functioning of the tea estate. 5. Ms U Das, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, on the other hand, submits that it will be upon the Police authorities and the district administration to assess any threat that may be faced by the tea estate and the petitioners may rest assured that appropriate steps will be taken by the administrative authorities to ensure that the lawful functioning of the tea estate shall not be disturbed, if the tea estate starts to function in a routine and normal manner. 6. This Court finds that there is a Police report to the effect that there are some disturbances being created and even property of the tea estate is being tried to be taken away by miscreants, for which the Police had to intervene. 7. In the facts and circumstances that the prayer in the writ petition for directing the issuance of a notification under Section 10 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has already been made by the Government, on 4th of February, 2020, and also in view of the fact an apprehension has been expressed by the petitioner that the starting and functioning of the tea estate may suffer, this Court, instead of keeping this writ petition pending, gives liberty, as already available in law, to the petitioner to make appropriate application to the administrative and district authorities, raising his apprehensions regarding the security of the tea-estate and its properties, and in the event, such a representation is filed, it is expected that the district authorities and the Police authorities would take into consideration, the Police Report submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, (DSB), Golaghat, Assam, and arrange for necessary security to see that the lawful and legal business of the petitioner does not suffer due to acts of the miscreants. No further adjudication of the grievance of the petitioner is called for, at this stage. Page No.# 5/5 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the orders passed hereinabove. 9. The petitioners would be at liberty to agitate their claims regarding the prayers made at Clause-b, c and B (c) of the petition, before the appropriate forum of law, if so advised. JUDGE Comparing Assistant