Page No.# 1/12 GAHC010016472016 2026:GAU-AS:10140 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3132/2016 OIL KHAD SURAKHA SOMITY HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT TENGKHAT, P.O. WILLTON, DISBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN-786101, REP. BY ITS ASSTT. GENERAL SECY. SRI MONOJ PATHAK, S/O LT. MOHAN PATHAK, R/O NO.2 MOUMARI GAON, P.O. KATHALGURI, DIST- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM and 4 ORS. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPTT. OF HOME , DISPUR, GHY-6 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ASSAM POLICE HQ ULUBARI GHY-7 3:OIL INDIA LTD. DULIAJAN ASSAM PIN-78602 REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER 4:THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT GOVT. OF INDIA NEW DELHI-110011 5:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT Page No.# 2/12 DISPUR GUWAHATI-0 Advocate for the Petitioner : MRU SARMA, MR. D GOGOI,MR.R MAZUMDAR,MS.R DUTTA,MR.H BEZBARUAH Advocate for the Respondent : MR.A SARMAR, MR. L. SANGTAM, SC, OIL,MS. K. PHUKAN, SC, C.G.C.,MR. T C CHUTIA, GA, ASSAM,MR.K KALITA(R-3),MR.S N SARMA(R-3),GA, ASSAM,MR.A JAHID(R-3),MR.S CHOUDHURY(R-3) BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 21/07/2026 Heard Mr. D Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, Mr. S Dutta, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. K Kalita, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 3 and Ms. K Phukan, learned CGC, appearing for the respondent No. 4. 2. The petitioner society has instituted the present writ petition praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities for enhancement of their wages for the works being done by them as members of the Village Defence Party. The petitioner society has also prayed for regularization/absorption of the services of the members of the society as members of the Assam Police Force. 3. The petitioner society in the writ petition has projected that it is a registered society, consisting of persons, who are working as Security Personnel and deputed for protection of installations and properties of the Oil India Limited. Page No.# 3/12 It is further projected that the members of the petitioner society were initially engaged by the State Police Authorities as Village Defence Party members, in terms of the provisions of the Assam Village Defence Organization Act, 1960 and the Rules framed, there under. It is also projected that the services of the members of the petitioner society were so engaged considering the need for protection of the installations and properties of the Oil India Limited situated in remote areas of the State. It is projected that at the time of their such engagement, the members of the petitioner society were only being given an out of pocket expense. It is also projected that the petitioner society had approached the police authorities as well as the Oil India Authorities, praying for enhancement of the wages of the members of the society, who were engaged for providing protection to the installations and properties of Oil India Limited. The prayer made by the petitioner society for enhancement of the wages of the members of the petitioner society engaged for works relating to providing protection to the installations and properties of Oil India Limited, having not evoked any response from the respondent authorities, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 4. Mr. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner, after reiterating the facts noticed hereinabove, has submitted that the members of the petitioner society, although, were engaged by the jurisdictional Police Stations as Village Defence Party members, they were in fact so engaged for the purpose of providing protection to the installations and properties of Oil India Limited, situated in remote areas. He submits that the members of the petitioner society, so engaged, were also required to provide protection to the oil pipe lines, situated Page No.# 4/12 in the remote areas of the State. 4.1 Mr. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the members of the petitioner society were granted a minimum wages of only Rs.86.80 per day for the works discharged by them. He submits that the wages as authorized to the members of the petitioner society by the authorities is much below the minimum wages as mandated for the work of Watch and Ward performed by the members of the petitioner society. He submits that the daily wages of the members of the petitioner society engaged for works of the Oil India Limited were subsequently enhanced to Rs.100/-, which he submits to be still much below the minimum wages mandated for such category of employees, carrying out Watch and Ward duties. 4.2 Mr. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the various Notifications issued by the Government of India as well as the Government of Assam in this connection, prescribing the minimum wages for the category of workers performing Watch and Ward duties. He submits that the manner in which the services of the members of the petitioner society are being extracted, by paying them meager wages, a violation of the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 has occasioned and accordingly, the respondent authorities are required to be directed to pay to the petitioner the minimum wages as determined by the competent authority for the work of Watch and Ward performed by the members of the petitioner society. 4.3 In support of his such submissions, Mr. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of People’s Union for Democratic Rights and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (1982) 3 SCC 235. Page No.# 5/12 5. Per contra, Ms. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate has submitted that the members of the petitioner society are registered Village Defence Party Volunteers and were engaged through the jurisdictional Police Station for providing security to installations and pipe lines of Oil India Limited in Dibrugarh District. 5.1 Ms. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate has submitted that in terms of the provisions of the Assam Village Defence Organization Act, 1966 (hereinafter, referred to as the Act of 1966) and the Assam Village Defence Organization Rules, 1986 (hereinafter, referred to as the Rules of 1986), such Village Defence Party Volunteers are not entitled to any wages, but are entitled to be granted an out of pocket expense. She submits that said out of pocket expense is being released to the members of the petitioner society by the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police, after the same is deposited by the Oil India Limited. She submits that in terms of the provisions of the Act of 1966 read with the provisions of the Rules of 1986, the members of a Village Defence Party render voluntary service and no remuneration for the same is contemplated in the provisions of the said Act of 1966. She submits that only an out of pocket expense is paid by the State, which is so reimbursed by the Oil India Limited. Accordingly, she submits that the claim made in the present writ petition for grant of minimum wages to the members of the petitioner society would not mandate an acceptance from this Court. 6. Mr. Dutta, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 3, at the outset, has submitted that the present writ petition would not be maintainable, inasmuch as, the registration of the petitioner society had lapsed. 6.1 Mr. Dutta, learned Senior counsel has further submitted that while the Page No.# 6/12 present writ petition has been instituted by the petitioner society, no material has been brought on record that the society had authorized Monoj Pathak to represent it in the present proceedings. He submits that no resolution of the petitioner society has been placed on record in this connection. Accordingly, it is submitted by Mr. Dutta that the present writ petition would not mandate a consideration on merits, considering the defects existing in institution of the same. 6.2 Having made the said submissions, Mr. Dutta, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 3 has submitted that the Village Defence Party members are engaged by the jurisdictional Police Station and are deployed in the oil operational areas for surveillance and protection of its installations and properties from miscreants and anti-social elements. He submits that the Oil India Limited, i.e., the respondent No. 3, is only liable to reimburse the pocket expense per month to the Village Defence Party members, so engaged for the said works relating to the Oil India Limited. He submits that as and when such engagement is not further required in this connection by the Oil India Limited Authorities, police withdraw such engaged Village Defence Party members from the area, wherein, they were so engaged. He submits that in terms of Section 10 of the Act of 1966, only a reward is permissible to be given to such Village Defence Party member for commendable services, including welfare work done by any of such members. He submits that in the Rules of 1986 also the provision made is only with regard to grant of money rewards for exemplary work and no remuneration is so contemplated for a Village Defence Party member either in the Act of 1966 and/or in the Rules of 1986. 6.3 Mr. Dutta, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 3 Page No.# 7/12 has further submitted that the enrollment of a person as a member of the Village Defence Party and its deployment for the work of providing protection to the Oil installations and properties is not made by the Oil India Authorities, but by the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police. He further submits that the members of the petitioner society were deployed for protection of the installations and properties of the respondent No. 3, i.e., Oil India Limited. Accordingly, he submits that the respondent No. 3, has got no control over the members of the petitioner society, deployed for providing protection to the installations and properties of the Oil India Limited. 6.4 Mr. Dutta, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 3, has further submitted that the members forming the Village Defence Party had instituted proceedings before this Court, assailing the provisions of Section 10 of the Act of 1966. He submits that the said writ petition, being WP(C) No. 4062/2019, was prayed to be withdrawn, which was permitted by the Division Bench vide order dated 25.02.2025. Accordingly, he submits that insofar as, the members of a Village Defence Party is so concerned, their discharge of duties and also release of any amount to them would be governed by the provisions of the Act of 1966 read with the Rules of 1986. He submits that no remuneration being permissible to be received by any of the Village Defence Party members considering the same to be a voluntary service, the claim made by the petitioner in the present writ petition would not mandate an acceptance by this Court on merits. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 8. From the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Page No.# 8/12 issue that arises for consideration by this Court is as to whether a Village Defence Party member, on being deployed for carrying out specific works by the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police, including carrying out of works relating to protection of installations and properties of Oil India Limited, is entitled to receive a remuneration for the same and that too, in accordance with the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 9. The Village Defence Party is so constituted under the provisions of the Assam Village Defence Organization Act, 1966. The said Act envisages constitution of such Village Defence Party for the purpose of assisting the police in maintenance of law and order, peace and tranquility in the State of Assam. The enrolled members of the said Village Defence Party is also entrusted with the responsibility of providing information to police about particulars of any person, suspected or accused of any cognizable offence or other anti-state acts and also to prevent commission of any cognizable offence, along with protecting Government and other public properties. They are also required to do social work. The Act of 1966 mandates that such Village Defence Party is to be so formed by the District Police for a particular village. For the purpose of the issue arising in the present writ petition, it is the provisions of Section 10 of the Act of 1966 that would be relevant to be noticed. The provisions of Section 10 of the Act of 1966, being relevant, the same is extracted hereinbelow: “10. No member of the organization shall be entitled to any remuneration but commendable services including welfare work done by any member may be suitably rewarded as may be prescribed.” 10. It is to be noted that the provisions of Section 10 of the Act of 1966 was subsequently amended by the provisions of the Assam Village Defence Page No.# 9/12 Organization (Amendment) Act, 2024. On amendment, the provisions of Section 10 of the Act of 1966, now reads as under: “10. No member of the organisation shall be entitled to any remuneration for the services rendered by them in the organisation but any commendable services including welfare work by any member may be rewarded as may be prescribed. In addition to the normal duties, if any Village Defence Party (VDP) or group of Village Defence Parties, have been entrusted with specific tasks involving requirement of expert and long drawn exercises, the Government may pay adequate financial support for the same to mitigate the expenses of the Village Defence Parties (VDP) in discharging their duties, the State Government shall grant honorarium following such procedure as may be prescribed." 11. A perusal of the provisions of Section 10 of the Act of 1966, prior to its amendment in the year 2024, would go to reveal that a member of a Village Defence Organization is held to be not entitled to any remuneration. However, commendable services rendered by such member, including welfare work done, is permissible to be suitably rewarded as may be prescribed. 12. This Court further finds that there is no change in the provisions of Section 10 of the Act of 1966, after its amendment and the Village Defence Party members are still entitled to not receive any remuneration. 13. The provisions of Chapter-VII of the Assam Village Defence Organization Rules, 1986 mandates payment of an out of pocket expense to the members of the Village Defence Party for the period the member had so rendered services. Such payment is to be made through the Secretary of the Thana Committee. 14. Accordingly, in view of the provisions of the Act of 1966 as well as the Page No.# 10/12 Rules of 1986, this Court finds that the services rendered by the members of the petitioner society to be a purely voluntary one and it has been stipulated that they would not be entitled to any remuneration for the purpose. The members of the petitioner society having enrolled themselves as members of the Village Defence Party by appreciating the provisions with regard to payment of remuneration existing in the Act of 1966 as well as in the Rules of 1986, the members of the petitioner society admittedly being members of a Village Defence Party, could not have raised a claim for being paid remuneration. 15. As noticed hereinabove, the members of the petitioner society had assailed the provisions of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1986 to the extent that it denies to them remuneration for the services rendered by them by way of instituting a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 4062/2019. The said writ petition was, however, permitted to be withdrawn by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.02.2025. Petitioner No. 12 in the said writ petition, Monoj Pathak is the person, who is representing the petitioner society in the present proceedings. 16. Accordingly, the projection made by the petitioner society in the present writ petition that its members are drawing wages is not supported from the provisions of the Act and the Rules holding the field as well as the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondents. The members of the petitioner society not being entitled to draw a wage, their services being voluntary in nature, without any provision for payment of remuneration, the petitioner society cannot claim that its members for the service rendered by them must be paid a wage and that too, in terms of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Had the engagement of the members of the petitioner society not being Page No.# 11/12 so effected under the provisions of the Act of 1966, such a plea of the petitioner would have mandated a consideration by this Court on merits. However, it not being disputed that the engagement of the members of the petitioner society was under the provisions of the Act of 1966, Section 10 of the said Act having barred payment of remuneration to an enrolled member of a Village Defence Party, the claim of the petitioner for being paid a wage, would not mandate an acceptance from this Court. 17. Having drawn the said conclusion, this Court would now consider the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of People’s Union for Democratic Rights (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 18. The issue arising for consideration of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision is whether on a payment of a wage less than the minimum wage are violation of the provisions of Article 23 of the Constitution of India occasions in the matter. Article 23 of the Constitution of India prohibits forced labour. 19. In the case on hand, given the provisions of the Act of 1966, the services rendered by the petitioner cannot be held to be a forced labour, inasmuch as, the petitioner with open eyes had extended their services on voluntary basis by enrolling themselves as a member of the Village Defence Organization. The petitioner having voluntarily enrolled themselves as a member of the Village Defence Organization, the services rendered by them, being within the confines of the Act of 1966, the same cannot be said to be forced labour and accordingly, the said decision in the case of People’s Union for Democratic Rights (supra), in the considered view of this Court, would not advance the case of the petitioner. Page No.# 12/12 20. In view of the conclusions reached by this Court, this Court does not further proceed to examine the contentions raised by the learned Senior counsel for the respondent No. 3 with regard to the manner in which the writ petition was so instituted. 21. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the considered view that the claim made by the petitioner society in the present writ petition would not mandate an acceptance and accordingly, the writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and consequently, the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant