Page No.# 1/24 GAHC010048512025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : W.P.(Crl.)/7/2025 SASHI KUMAR TEA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES, ACT, 1956, AN EXISTING COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SIMLITOLA TEA ESTATE, P.O. SIMLITOLA, DISTRICT-GOALPARA, ASSAM- 783130 2: DIGANTA BARMAN SON OF GOBINDA BARMAN WORKING FOR GAIN AS THE GENERAL MANAGER OF SIMILITOLA TEA ESTATE OF PETITIONER NO. 1 COMPANY SIMLITOLA TEA ESTATE SIMLITOLA DISTRICT- GOALPARA ASSAM- 78313 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, HOME (POLITICAL) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, JANATA BHAWAN, GUWAHATI - 781006 2:DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTER ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 781007 3:DISTRICT COMMISSIONER GOALPARA GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM BALADMARI GOALPARA - 783121. Page No.# 2/24 4:SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE GOALPARA DISTRICT BAPUJI NAGAR GOALPARA PIN- 783121. 5:OFFICER IN CHARGE RANJULI POLICE STATION GOALPARA PIN-783130 6:THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER LABOUR WELFARE ASSAM DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM SHRAM BHAWAN B K KAKATI ROAD GUWAHATI- 781007 7:THE CHIEF INSPECTOR OF PLANTATIONS GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM SHRAM BHAWAN B K KAKATI ROAD GUWAHATI- 781007 8:THE LABOUR OFFICER GOALPARA GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM KACHARI GHAT ROAD BARA BAZAR GOALPARA PIN- 783101 9:THE LABOUR INSPECTOR DUDHNOI GOALPARA DIST- GOALPARA PIN-783122 10:ASSAM CHAH MAZDOOR SANGHA SIMLITOLA TEA ESTATE GARDEN UNIT A REGISTERED TRADE UNION HAVING ITS OFFICE AT P.O. SIMLITOLA DISTRICT- GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783130 WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THIS LEARNED COURT Page No.# 3/24 11:PRESIDENT OF ASSAM CHAH MAZDOOR SANGHA SIMLITOLA TEA ESTATE GARDEN UNIT WORKING FOR GAIN AT SIMLITOLA TEA ESTATE GARDEN P.O. SIMLITOLA DISTRICT-GOALPARA ASSAM- 783130 WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THIS LEARNED COURT. 12:SECRETARY OF ASSAM CHAH MAZDOOR SANGHA SIMLITOLA TEA ESTATE GARDEN UNIT WORKING FOR GAIN AT SIMLITOLA TEA ESTATE GARDEN P.O. SIMLITOLA DISTRICT- GOALPARA ASSAM 783130 WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THIS LEARNED COURT Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S A HUSSAIN, MR H K DAS (P-2),L HANGZO,R BARMAN,G BORO,MR D J HALOI Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/802/2025 SASHI KUMAR TEA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 AN EXISTING COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE COMPANIES ACT 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SIMLITOLA TEA ESTATE P.O SIMLITOLA DIST-GOALPARA ASSAM 783130 2: DIGANTA BARMAN SON OF GOBINDA BARMAN WORKING FOR GAIN AS THE GENERAL MANAGER OF SIMILITOLA TEA ESTATE OF PETITIONER NO. 1 COMPANY SIMLITOLA TEA ESTATE SIMLITOLA DISTRICT- GOALPARA ASSAM- 783130 VERSUS Page No.# 4/24 THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY HOME POLITICAL DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM JANATA BHAWAN DISPUR GUWAHATI 2:DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTER ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 781007 3:DISTRICT COMMISSIONER GOALPARA GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM BALADMARI GOALPARA - 783121. 4:SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE GOALPARA DISTRICT BAPUJI NAGAR GOALPARA PIN- 783121. 5:OFFICER IN CHARGE RANJULI POLICE STATION GOALPARA PIN-783130 6:THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER LABOUR WELFARE ASSAM DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM SHRAM BHAWAN B K KAKATI ROAD GUWAHATI- 781007 7:THE CHIEF INSPECTOR OF PLANTATIONS GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM SHRAM BHAWAN B K KAKATI ROAD GUWAHATI- 781007 8:THE LABOUR OFFICER GOALPARA Page No.# 5/24 GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM KACHARI GHAT ROAD BARA BAZAR GOALPARA PIN- 783101 9:THE LABOUR INSPECTOR DUDHNOI GOALPARA DIST- GOALPARA PIN-783122 10:ASSAM CHAH MAZDOOR SANGHA SIMLITOLA TEA ESTATE GARDEN UNIT A REGISTERED TRADE UNION HAVING ITS OFFICE AT P.O. SIMLITOLA DISTRICT- GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783130 WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THIS LEARNED COURT 11:PRESIDENT OF ASSAM CHAH MAZDOOR SANGHA SIMLITOLA TEA ESTATE GARDEN UNIT WORKING FOR GAIN AT SIMLITOLA TEA ESTATE GARDEN P.O. SIMLITOLA DISTRICT-GOALPARA ASSAM- 783130 WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THIS LEARNED COURT. 12:SECRETARY OF ASSAM CHAH MAZDOOR SANGHA SIMLITOLA TEA ESTATE GARDEN UNIT WORKING FOR GAIN AT SIMLITOLA TEA ESTATE GARDEN P.O. SIMLITOLA DISTRICT- GOALPARA ASSAM 783130 WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THIS LEARNED COURT. ------------ Advocate for : SAMSUL ALAM HUSSAIN Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Page No.# 6/24 23.04.2025 Heard Mr. H.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Senior Government Advocate Mr. D. Nath for the respondent Nos. 1 to 9. 2. Petitioner No. 1 in this case is Sashi Kumar Tea Company Private Limited and petitioner No. 2 is the General Manager of Similitola Tea Estate Sri Diganta Barman. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition or any other order/orders, directing the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 or their men, agents and sub- ordinates to discharge all the statutory duties in accordance with law :- (i) To provide adequate security to the petitioner No. 1 Company by deputing adequate police personnel in the Similitola Tea Estate. (ii) To take action in respect of Rangjuli Police Station Case No. 01/2025 and Rangjuli Police Station Case No. 03/2025. (iii) Petitioners have also prayed for an order to monitor the progress of investigation in connection with the aforementioned cases and direct the respondent No. 4 to submit a monthly progress report before this Court till completion of investigation of the aforementioned cases and to issue a rule Nisi. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner No. 2 is the General Manager of Similitola Tea Estate, under the registered Company of petitioner No. 1, with 237 permanent workers and 230 temporary workers and 20 managerial and other staff in the Tea Garden under its pay roll. Page No.# 7/24 4. The Assam Chah Mazdoor Sangha (ACMS for short) and the petitioner Company were embroiled in various disputes since 01.04.2022 which ultimately led to law and order situation in the Tea Garden. The disputes were amicably resolved during a meeting held on 08.04.2022 in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara and it was agreed as follows :- The workers and the Union shall adhere to working hours of 8 hours in a day i.e. 48 hours in a six days week. In case of strike, a permission has to be taken from the District Administration. A dedicated space will be identified for Dharnas, Demonstration etc. and, The factory of Simlitola Tea Estate would be run by contractual members who would not be members of the Union. 5. In another meeting held on 22.03.2024 between the petitioner No. 1 company and the workers of the Tea Estate represented by the ACMS, in presence of the Labour Officer, it was resolved that the workers would work for 8 (Eight) hours per day. It is alleged that during the plucking season commencing from 17.02.2025, both the temporary and permanent workers, being members of ACMS instead of joining their respective duties, gathered in the school garden at 7:00 am on 29.04.2024 and obstructed all the casual workers from plucking green tea leaves. This led to a law and order situation in the Tea Garden, and violation of the previous agreements dated 08.04.2022 and 22.03.2024. Petitioner No. 1 was constrained to issue a show-cause to the workers of the Tea Garden, but on the request of the workers, petitioner No. 1 Page No.# 8/24 with a compassionate view did not proceed to take the show-cause to its logical end. 6. It is submitted that as per the order dated 15.07.2024, the last date of plucking green leaves was fixed on 30.11.2024 and thereafter, the Tea Company would embark on pruning the tea bushes which would allow only a gap of two months (60 days), for the bushes to be ready for plucking from the month of February, 2025. 7. Considering the total number of permanent work force, 136 days would be required to prune all the tea bushes in the garden comprising of 218 hectares. Any failure to comply with the timeline prescribed by the Tea Board of India would result in immense loss to the petitioners. 8. Under these circumstances through the Sardars employed in the Tea garden, the permanent workers were requested to commence pruning from 02.12.2024, but the permanent workers and the members of the ACMS wrongfully and illegally refused/failed to commence the pruning work as agreed pursuant to the meetings dated 08.08.2022 and 22.03.2024. 9. On 30.09.2024, a bilateral meeting between the Management and the ACMS was held and it was resolved as follows :- Workers would receive and accept the bonus @ 8.33%. The Management as a good will gesture agreed to pay an incentive of 3.67% and so on and so forth. Page No.# 9/24 The members of the ACMS unjustifiably refused to perform pruning on hazira basis but demanded the work to be assigned on task basis. 10. On 03.12.2024, ACMS requested the petitioner No. 1 to reconsider the request on the pretext that pruning for 8 (Eight) hours a day would adversely affect their health. Considering the predicament, the petitioners with a sympathetic view agreed to allow the permanent workers to work for 6 (Six) hours a day for the next season during the winter season. 11. Despite the accommodation by the petitioner No. 1, when the ACMS and its members refused to resume pruning in the Tea Garden, this led to mass absenteeism and the petitioner No. 1 was compelled to approach the District Administration on 04.12.2024 as any further delay would result in irreparable loss to the petitioners’ company. 12. ACMS on the other hand by their letter to the Labour Officer sought to justify their refusal to work claiming that the demand of 3.67% of incentive was extended to them subject to the condition of achieving the target of 6 Lacs kgs of tea leaves during the months of October and November, 2024 vide meeting held on 30.09.2024. Some fictitious demands and conditions were also raised (Annexure-11). 13. Pursuant to this letter dated 04.12.2024, a meeting was held in the Office of the District Commissioner, Goalpara on 09.12.2024 between the District Administration, a representative of the petitioners and representatives of ACMS and it was agreed that the workers would work for 6 (Six) hours a day for the months December, 2024 and January, 2025. The ACMS sought further time to Page No.# 10/24 consider the offer of petitioner No. 1 and three days time were granted to the ACMS. 14. A meeting was held on 09.12.2024 and SKTCPL by its letter dated 16.12.2024 informed the Labour Officer that the entire façade of mass absenteeism was orchestrated by Adword Baraik and a few other workers. It was also unearthed that the workers of Simlitola Tea Estate (STE for short) instead of performing their duties were performing pruning work in another tea garden using equipments provided to them by petitioner’s company (SKTCPL for short) to the detriment of the Management of STE. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that absolute inaction by the administration to provide police sscurity led to the escalation and aggravated mischief by some of the workers. Most of the workers are innocent led by 18-20 trouble mongers. Armed police protection inside the garden is inevitable. The labourers are threatening to pluck the tea leaves from the garden and sell it in the local market. The action taken report forwarded to the learned Government Advocate by the Superintendent of Police, Goalpara is only in papers but practically there is absolute inaction by the police force and the administration. It is submitted that disruption of work started from the year 2022 and is still continuing till date. The tea garden has succumbed to the demands and eight hours of work has been reduced to six hours whereas some of the workers are only working for five hours. 16. On the contrary, learned Senior Government Advocate has submitted that the dispute between the Garden and the management is their internal dispute. The grievances cannot be ventilated against the police and the administration in Page No.# 11/24 this manner by lamenting inaction against the police despite the fact that the police force has extended their support and their helping hand during every crisis. In the garb of a writ petition, police protection cannot be deployed. The proper way is to resolve the dispute between the management and the labour on being monitored by the District Labour Officer. The petitioners cannot ask for round the clock police protection to a tea garden. These issues cannot be raised through a writ petition. Instead of applying for AISF, the petitioners have directly come to this Court with a writ petition (Crl.). 17. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. The petitioners have relied on a decision of the High Court of Judicature of Kerala in connection with Kerala Spinning Mill Workers Union Vs. Kerala Spinners Limited, wherein, vide order dated 17.01.1994 in Writ Appeal No. 01/1994, it has been held that:- “12. The rulings referred to by the appellant's counsel, each of which was rendered by various learned Single Judges of this Court, far from supporting the appellant, in fact, go against them. All that the rulings state is that police protection orders should not be given by the High Court under Art.226 for the mere asking of it. The discretion has to be soundly exercised. But, at the same time, when there have been acts of violence by workmen against the person and property of the employer, if the police, to whom the employer has resorted to, do not give adequate and timely protection, the employer must have a legal remedy to enforce his right to protection of his person and property. We are governed by the rule of law and the State has a solemn duty towards its citizens for protection of their person and property. Whether any particular situation. deserves grant of police protection from the Court, it is for the Court to decide, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, including the past conductor the workmen and the reasonableness of the apprehension of the employer in regard to the likelihood of the recurrence of such conduct on the part of the workmen. It cannot be said that, even in cases of proof of past violent conduct of the workmen, police protection to the employer if granted by Court, would tilt the balance of bargaining power in favour of the management. If the rulings cited by the appellant lay down any such broad proposition, we respectfully dissent from the same. Page No.# 12/24 13. We may add that if in a case of violent acts or obstruction or gherao by the workers, the management is not granted protection, the balance of the bargaining power may, indeed, tilt in favour of the workmen. It is the duty of the Court to see that peace is restored and parties are allowed to come to the negotiation table, without the balance being tilled either way. We are of the view that grant of police protection to the management, if the court considers it to be necessary on the facts of a given case, only restores normalcy and cannot be said to put the management in any advantageous position. The position between management and workmen is one of inter-dependence and it is the duty of the Court to see that one party does not resort to unlawful methods, such as gherao, obstruction or violence, compel the management to accede to terms which, but for such compulsion, the management would not have acceded to.” 18. The petitioners have also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kiran Devi Vs. Bihar State's Sunni Waqf Board and Ors reported in (2021) 15 SCC 15, wherein it has been held that:- 24. The judgment referred to by Mr. Sanyal in Sir Hukamchand Mannalal & Co. that a member of an HUF is competent to enter into a contract with stranger does not support the argument raised. It has been held that if a member of the HUF enters into contract with a stranger, he does so in his individual capacity. It was held as under: "5. The Indian Contract Act imposes no disability upon members of a Hindu undivided family in the matter of entering into a contract inter se or with a stranger. A member of a Hindu undivided family has the same liberty of contract as any other individual: it is restricted only in the manner and to the extent provided by the Indian Contract Act. Partnership is under Section 4 of the Partnership Act the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all: if such a relation exists, it will not be invalid merely because two or more of the persons who have so agreed are members of a Hindu undivided family........" 25. This Court has quoted with the approval of the judgment reported as P.K.P.S. Pichappa Chettiar & Ors. v. Chockalingam Pillai & Ors., AIR 1934 Privy Council 192 wherein it has been held that when a manager of a joint family enters into a partnership, that would not ipso facto make the other member of his family as partners. The Court held as under: "In their Lordships' opinion, the law in respect of the matter now under consideration is correctly stated in Mayne's Hindu Law (9th Edn.) at page 398, as follows: "Where a managing member of a joint family enters into a partnership with a Page No.# 13/24 stranger the other members of the family do not 'ipso facto become partners in the business so as to clothe them with all the rights and obligations of a partner as defined by the Indian Contract Act. In such a case the family as a unit does not become a partner, but only such of its members as in fact enter into a contractual relation with the stranger: the partnership will be governed by the Act." In this passage reference is made to the Indian Contract Act, which would be applicable to the facts of this case. It is to be noted that the sections referring to partnership in the said Act have been repealed and are now embodied in the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. Even assuming, therefore, that Virappa was the manager of his joint Hindu family in 1908, his entering into partnership with the Chetties in that year would not "ipsofacto" make the other members of his family partners ..." 19. It is further submitted that the woes and worries of the petitioners are unwarranted. 20. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Government Advocate that regular patrolling and area domination is being carried out at the Simlitola Bagan area to maintain general law and order and peace in the area. The petitioners cannot ask for extra police force for the security of the garden to resolve their internal disputes. Endeavour has to be made by both the parties to resolve their dispute internally and the police force cannot be burdened with the additional duty of keeping the peace in the garden. The security that is required has already been provided and the petitioners without any hesitation can carry out with the production and pruning and plucking in the garden with the aid of the police and the administration which has already been provided to the tea garden i.e., the tea company. There is nothing to disbelieve the report of the Superintendent of the police, Goalpara. A detailed report has been submitted and assurance has already been given by the Superintendent of police. Without any hesitation, the petitioners can carry on with the work. The petition is liable Page No.# 14/24 to be dismissed as it cannot be preempted that as soon as the work will be resumed, the life and property of the tea company would be under threat. 21. It is further submitted that meanwhile on 04.01.2025, a meeting was held and presided by ADC, Goalpara with the garden workers and the lockout notice was withdrawn by the management. The garden works were resumed on 06.01.2025, but on 10.01.2025, the manager Diganta Barman lodged an FIR with the police at Rangjuli P.S. about a mob consisting of 18 people and assaulting the complainant and his staff Ratul Talukdar. This FIR was registered as Rangjuli P.S. Case No. 3/2025. During investigation, it was found that some of the workers were involved in an argument with the manager regarding the wages not being paid by the management which resulted in a gathering of over 500-700 labourers and assaulting one person namely Ratul Talukdar but the situation was brought down by the Simlitola Outpost. Later on both the complainant and the victim were forwarded to the Rangjuli BPHC for medical treatment but the doctor referred them to the GMCH for better treatment. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence and prepared the sketch map and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Two security guards namely Rajib Das and Dhrubojyoti Das have also recorded their statements and they have stated that they approached the management office but they could not ascertain who have assaulted the manager Diganta Barman and the employee Ratul Talukdar. One assistant manager namely Shilpi Bora who is also a victim has stated that she did not see anyone assaulting the manager. One more victim Ratul Talukdar could not be examined as he was not co-operating. The injury reports are yet to be collected. 22. In view of the seriousness of the issue, the Additional Superintendent of Page No.# 15/24 Police, (Crime), Goalpara has been entrusted to personally supervise both the cases for speedy and effective investigation. Regular patrolling and area domination were carried out in the Simlitola Bagan to maintain general law and order and peace in the area. By highlighting the letter of the Superintendent of Goalpara Police, Goalpara District, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that both the cases have been registered and investigated upon. The police have taken action and supervision has also been carried out by the Additional Superintendent of Police. It is vehemently denied that there has been inaction and inertia on the part of the administration and the police in protecting the life and the property of the tea estate. 23. Instructions were obtained by the Learned Senior Government Advocate from the Superintendent of Police at Goalpara. The Superintendent of Police has submitted an action taken report of Rangjuli P.S.Case No.1/2025 and Rangjuli P.S.Case No.3/2025. It is submitted that on 28.12.2024, an information was received that the female workers of the tea estate entered the factory premises and demanded the management to abstain the outsider workers till the lockout period ended as Bagan Management Committee declared lockout on 24.12.2024. Accordingly, the Simlitola Outpost staff arrived at the spot and controlled the situation. It was learned that a long-standing feud was prevalent between the management and the labourers regarding pruning work of the tea estate. The management wanted the labourers to work according to ‘Hajira basis’ whereas the labourers demanded to work on ‘task basis.’ Later, the management brought eight labourers from outside for pruning but the local labourers opposed this action of the management. This issue was resolved at the Office of the District Commissioner, Goalpara and an order was passed to resume work on ‘task basis’ along with outside labourers and both the Page No.# 16/24 parties i.e., the management and the labourers agreed. 24. Again on 24.12.2024, the Bagan Management suddenly declared a lockout and brought four female management employees from outside during the lockout period. The manager along with the other management staff then left the garden for the period till the issue is resolved between both the parties. In connection with the aforementioned incident, on 06.01.2025 at 06:27 p.m., the manager Diganta Barman lodged an FIR at Rangjuli P.S., that an agitation on 28.12.2024, escalated to a physical assault by the labourers causing various injuries on the victim and a robbery was also committed and an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- and a gold chain was snatched away from the manager Diganta Barman at gunpoint. Rangjuli P.S. Case No. 1/2025 was registered and the Investigating Officer was entrusted with the investigation. 25. It is submitted that the Investigating Officer has embarked upon the investigation and he went to the place of occurrence and recorded the statements of the complainant and other witnesses including personnel security and the Bagan Management and female management employee. The personnel security stated that they have not seen anyone carrying arms and assaulting the manager. The female management staff also stated that they have not seen anyone assaulting the manager i.e., the complainant or carrying any weapons or arms. The CCTV footage could not be collected as the CCTV was not functioning. From the statements of all the witnesses, it is learnt that only female labourers entered into the management's residential area and there was no incidence of assault or evidence of extortion at gunpoint. The victims were examined and medical reports were also collected. According to the Medical Officer, no external injuries were detected on the victim. It is submitted by the Page No.# 17/24 Learned Senior Government Advocate that indeed a case has been registered relating to the incident of 28.12.2024 and the investigation is almost complete. 26. The petitioners have prayed for writ of mandamus with direction to respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5; their men, agents and subordinates to act in accordance with law and to provide adequate security to the petitioner No. 1 company by deploying adequate permanent police personnel in Simlitola Tea Estate including the tea garden to ensure the safety and security and protection of the managerial staff and properties of the Tea estate. 27. Issue a writ or direction to the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5; each of them and their subordinates to take action in respect of Rangjuli P.S. Case No. 1/2025 and Rangjuli P.S. Case No. 3/2025, to pass a direction upon the respondent No. 4 to submit a monthly progress report before this Court till investigation of the aforementioned cases are concluded and to issue rule in terms of the prayers made above. 28. It is further contended that vide letter dated 20.02.2025, the ACMS threatened the petitioner No. 1 company that the workers would not work unless their dues are paid from 6th January 2025. The Labour Officer was also informed about the letter, but to their utter surprise, the Labour Officer directed the petitioner No. 1 company to pay the wages within (3) three weeks, lest there would be legal proceedings against the company. It was also apprised to the Labour Inspector that without security, the management cannot enter into the office and pay the wages. The jurisdictional Superintendent of Police was also apprised about this predicament. It is further contended that as the state authorities are reluctant to provide security to the petitioner No. 1 company, the tea garden is facing irreparable loss owing to the impasse. In gross violation of Page No.# 18/24 Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, the respondents have failed to ensure and assist the petitioner No. 1 company to preserve its property or carry on its business peacefully. 29. It is contended that the respondents including the police authorities, have also acted in violation of the provisions of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 and Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita 2023. The respondents have also acted in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. As per Chapter 12 of the BNSS 2023, the duty of the police is not only to apprehend those who have committed the offences against whom an FIR has been registered, but also to prevent from further offences being committed. Prevention is the most important facet of the duties of the police authorities as per Section 168 of the BNSS 2023. Under Article 265 of the Constitution of India, the executive powers of the state are required to be so exercised to ensure compliance with laws made by the Parliament. 30. It is further contended that instead of considering the response of the petitioner No. 1 on merits and rejecting the workers' frivolous claims, the Labour Commissioner in a very unreasonable and high-handed manner, directed the petitioner No. 1 company to start functioning the garden immediately without appreciating that the impasse was created solely at the behest of the workers. The Labour Commissioner failed to appreciate that it was the duty of the State to ensure safety and security to the petitioner No. 1 company and instead directed the company to obtain security at its own cost. It is further submitted that any number of security from AISF would prove insufficient and inadequate until and unless the police authorities take definite legal action against the erring workers. Page No.# 19/24 The Labour Officer has overlooked the fact that the workers absented themselves from 02.12.2024 and refused to return to work despite all agreements and concessions made by SKTCPL. 31. On the contrary, on 10.02.2025, the Labour Officer, Goalpara, sought a reply from the petitioner No. 1 company for non-payment of the purported outstanding wages of the workers. It is submitted that save and except wages for five days i.e. 06.02.2025 up to 10.02.2025, no wages are pending for payment. It is further contended that several meetings were held on 17.01.2025 and 05.02.2025. It is alleged that the Labour Commissioner instead of resolving the dispute between the petitioner No. 1 company and the ACMS, directed the petitioner No. 1 company to bow down to the demands of the ACMS and the workers without verifying why wages of certain workers were withheld. The Labour Commissioner also overlooked that the ACMS and certain troublemakers were instigating several workers to work for only five hours and if a worker works for five hours they do not deserve the wages. 32. A notice of reconciliation was issued under section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 by the District Labour Officer. A conciliation meeting was held on 04.01.2025 and it was agreed as follows:- (i) Management would lift the lock-out with effect from 05.01.2025 and normal work would resume from 06.01.2025. (ii) Management agreed to allow customary practice for pruning subject to the backlog pruning work being outsourced and performed through mechanization. (iii) Workers who did not engage in pruning work would be required Page No.# 20/24 to perform eight hours of duty per day. 33. The lockout notice was withdrawn but instead of resuming work, the ACMS resorted to mischief by writing a letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara purporting to raise various false and frivolous claims to justify their absenteeism from duty. Various false allegations were leveled against the petitioner No. 1 company and the respondents, mechanically without any application of mind entertained their false allegations. It is alleged that the authorities failed in their duty in accepting such illegal demands of the workers without insisting that the workers would abide by the terms agreed upon by them in the meeting held on 04.01.2025. 34. It is further contended that on 10.01.2025, the Labour Officer, in a most mechanical and predetermined manner, issued notice to the petitioner No. 1 company directing it to appear before her on 17.01.2025 at the office of the District Commissioner, Goalpara. On 10.01.2025, again a mob comprising of 18 persons attacked, assaulted, manhandled and grievously injured the petitioner No. 2 and a staff, namely Mr. Ratul Talukdar. An FIR was registered against the members of the mob, who are also members of the ACMS but similar to the previous FIR dated 28.12.2024, no action has been taken against those responsible for the attack. A new manager has been appointed to replace petitioner No. 2 who was grievously injured. On 16.01.2025, the petitioner No. 1 Company was compelled to apprise the Chief Inspector of Plantations, Assam about the reluctance and inaction on the part of the police to proceed against the lawbreakers and provide security and ensure safety to its employees. A meeting was then held on 17.01.2025 in the office of the District Labour Commissioner, Goalpara. Page No.# 21/24 35. Thereafter, on December 20, 2024, the ACMS threatened to disturb the peace and create a law and order situation if the purported task-based work system for winter season pruning was not met. A notice of conciliation was received and a meeting was arranged at the office of the District Development Commissioner on 23.12.2024. On 24.12.2024, the petitioner No. 1 company was compelled to bring the wrongful refusal of the workers to the notice of the Chief Inspector of Plantations and inform him that the management was compelled to declare a lockout of all operations at the garden with effect from 24.12.2024. A meeting was held on 26.12.2024 in presence of the Chief Inspector of Plantations. The ACMS unfortunately refused to work according to the statutory act. 36. Again, on 28.12.2024, at about 11 a.m., some unknown miscreants armed with sharp and deadly weapons in connivance with some members of the ACMS broke through the entrance gate of the Simlitola Tea Estate and forcibly entered into the office, factory and residential bungalow in the Tea Estate and created havoc by destroying and damaging valuable assets, properties and documents. The mob also physically assaulted and caused grievous injuries to the staff and other persons of the Tea Estate. An amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- and a gold chain was also snatched from petitioner No. 2 at gunpoint from his General manager's bungalow. To the utter shock and dismay of the petitioners, the police maintained an indifferent attitude towards the complaint of the petitioners and refused to register an FIR, but reluctantly on 06.01.2025, an FIR was registered regarding the incident which occurred on 28.12.2024. The District Commissioner, District Development Officer, Labour Officer and ACMS were all apprised about the incident of 28.12.2024. Page No.# 22/24 37. The aforesaid incidents led to the ACMS and it's office bearers instigating the member workers and threatening the petitioner and his directors and other managerial employees with dire consequences. This impelled the petitioner No. 1 company to lodge an FIR with the police. A letter was also addressed by the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner of Goalpara, who took cognizance of the petitioner No. 1's aforementioned complaint vide letter dated 18.12.2024, and after enquiry by its order dated 18.12.2024, was pleased to detail the Circle Officer and Executive Magistrate, Goalpara for law and order duties at the Tea garden with a request to the Superintendent of Police, Goalpara to take necessary steps for deployment of adequate police personnel during the time of law and order situation in co-ordination with the Circle Officer, Rangjuli. 37. 37. On 17.12.2024, a meeting was held at the office of the Labour Officer, Goalpara between the petitioner No. 1 company and the ACMS, but to no avail. There were disagreements between the ACMS and the petitioner No. 1 company, whereas the Labour Officer advised the petitioner No. 1 company to accede to the demands of the ACMS, which were unjustified. The pruning was already beyond time and the petitioner No. 1 company had to incur losses on earlier occasions, and this year too, the petitioner No. 1 company had to incur losses due to the unjustified demand of the ACMS. It is apt to mention at this juncture that the members of the ACMS worked in other tea companies for the same working hours, to which they were disagreeing to work in the petitioner No. 1's company. On their unjustified demand, the working hours were reduced to six hours, but it did not escape the attention of the petitioner No. 1 company that several workers and labourers were working in other tea gardens for eight hours or more hours than the agreed period of six hours in the petitioner No. 1 company. The pruning was already three weeks behind schedule, and the Page No.# 23/24 petitioner No. 1 was compelled to engage outside experts who would commence work from 19.12.2024. 38. It is true that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, police protection orders should not be given for the mere asking of it, but in this case, the production has been hindered from the year 2022 by the workers. It cannot be ignored that certain amount of wages have also been denied by the management and an order of police protection may result in tilting of the bargain in favour of the management. The internal dispute has to be resolved by the stakeholders amongst themselves peacefully and with an objective to resolve the same. 39. There are ways and means to resolve such disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act and other similar statutes for conciliation through the assistance of statutory authorities. 40. In the wake of the following discussions, it is thereby held that work has been hampered since the year 2022. The tea garden is facing heavy loss due to the obstruction of ingress into and egress from the garden by a few members of the ACMS. 42. Although a resolution has to be adopted between the Management and the ACMS to resolve the internal dispute of the workers and the Management, police protection at least for two weeks is required, to restart production and other works in the tea garden. The pruning season is over and now, work has to be resumed in the tea garden. Page No.# 24/24 43. It is true that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, police protection orders should not be given for mere asking of it, but in this case the production of the tea garden has been hindered on and off from the year 2022. It cannot be ignored that certain amount of wages have also been denied by the Management and an order of police protection may result in tilting the bargain in favor of the management, but at the same time the work has to be resumed. Thereby, the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are directed to provide police protection for resumption of work in the tea garden at least for two weeks from today and thereafter, the internal dispute has to be resolved by the stakeholders amongst themselves peacefully and with an objective to resolve the same. 44. Every endeavour may be made by the petitioners and the respondent Nos. 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 12 and others to resolve the dispute of the Simlitola Tea Estate. 45. In terms of the above observation, this petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant