The non-payment of wages/honorarium by the respondents to the petitioners was not just, fair, and reasonable, resulting in the violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Kh. Nobin Singh, J.

1. Heard Shri Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri K. Jagat, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents.

2.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for payment of back wages/honorarium of the petitioner Nos. 4 to 20 w.e.f. August, 2000 to March, 2003 amounting to a sum of Rs. 8,16,000 (Rupees eight lakhs and sixteen thousand) and also for quashing the Government order dated 16-02-2005 issued by the Principal Secretary (Health), Government of Manipur.

2.2. According to the petitioners, the petitioner Nos. 4 to 20 are members of the Association called “Manipur Guard Service”, a registered Association and the petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the President, Secretary and the Treasurer of the said Association. The aims and objects of the said association are given as under -

“AIMS AND OBJECTS

(i) The aim and object for which the organisation is to provide a client to fetch a sense of security, mental peace, self-confidence and harmony through reliable quality, security service, etc. To establish a welfare to the un-employed ex-serviceman and civilian in the state, after their basic training for guard. The trained guards are drawn authenticated prior to their deployed for duty to Hospital, Projects, Institution, Bank/Financial Companies Corporate giants, etc.

(ii) The code of conduct are drawn from Ex-Servicemen's and un-employed civilians as they were trained for guard and their code of conduct as follows:--

(a) Be loyal to the state and the organisation.

(b) Maintain highest standard of discipline.

(c) Be courteous, friendly and cheerful.

(d) Promote objectives of the present organisation.

(e) Be sincere, honest and truthful.

(f) Carry out duties regarding the consequences.

(g) Protect and promote lawful interest of clients.”

2.3. The management of the said Association has entered into agreements for providing guard services with different authorities/institutions like Regional Institute of Medical Science, Lamphelpat, Sija Hospital and Research Institute, Langol, the Sports Authority of India (SAI), Takyelpat, Imphal Hospital, RIMS Road, City Montessori School, Koirengei, Kanan Devi Memorial Academy, Imphal, etc. The management of the said Association and the concerned authorities/institutions have settled the remuneration payable to the members of the said association for rendering guard services varying from institution to institution i.e., from Rs. 1600/- (Rupees one thousand six hundred) p.m. to Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand) p.m. for each guards.

2.4. On 17-07-2000 the management of the said Association made an offer for providing guard services to the respondent No. 2 in the J.N Hospital and after having discussed the details in length, it was orally agreed between the petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 2 that the association would carry out free security services in the J. N Hospital prior to their formal agreement and a copy of the proposed terms and conditions was submitted on the same day. On the next day i.e., 18-07-2000 the petitioner No. 2 submitted a representation to the respondent No. 3, Superintendent, J N Hospital for carrying out the said free security services for ten days, with a request for providing accommodation of 17 (seventeen) guards. The Respondent No. 3 allowed to carry out the free security service which was done from 01-08-2000 to 10-08-2000.

2.5. Being satisfied with the services rendered by the petitioner Nos. 4 to 20 during the said period of 10 (ten) days, the respondent No. 3 verbally instructed the petitioners to continue providing their guard services with the promise that a fixed remuneration of Rs. 2500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred) p.m. would be paid for each petitioner deployed therein. The petitioner Nos. 4 to 20 continued to provide their services in the J.N. Hospital by roaster as per agreement and promise for payment of fixed remuneration as stated above. The respondent No. 3 addressed a letter date