GUWAHATI, India, Feb. 25 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Jan. 27:

1. 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 outsourced 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 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 particularly, to Clause 22.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqDoEKU7iF4uwIP%2FpCnnROroatDCD9d31vySXpHXb5g3L&caseno=WP(C)/3415/2024&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010132712024&state_code=6&appFlag=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.