Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 306 (GAU)

Marcofed Employees Union v. State of Nagaland

2005-04-11

T.NANDAKUMAR SINGH

body2005
JUDGMENT T.N.K. Singh, J. 1. These two writ petitions, claiming similar reliefs basing on the same question of fact, are being taken up jointly for disposal by this common judgment and order. 2. Heard Mr. A. Zhimomi, learned Counsel for the writ Petitioners as well as Mr. L.S. Jamir, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 3. The Nagaland State Co-operative Marketing and Consumers Federation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as MARCOFED) is a corporate body registered under "the Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 1949 (Act No. 1 of 1950)" having its Office at Dimapur, Nagaland. The Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 1949 (Act No. 1 of 1950) is extended to the State of Nagaland. According to Article 3 of the Bye-Laws of MARCOFED, the area of operation shall be the entire State of Nagaland. Under Article 4 of the Bye-Laws, the fund of the MARCOFED shall consist of: i) Admission fee; ii) Money realized by the sale of transfer of shares; iii) Deposits and loans from members also non-members; iv) Profit which accrue to the Federation; v) Govt. loans, grants and subsidies; vi) Voluntary subscriptions; vii) Loan and or overdrafts from any registered Co-op. society/societies in the state. The State Bank of India Ltd. or any other financing agency. Article 6 of the Bye-laws speaks about the type of membership of the MARCOFED and it reads as follows: 6. The membership shall consists of: a) A-Category member consisting of Co-op. Institution; b) B-Category members consisting of individual and sympathizers, and c) C-Category; The Govt. of Nagaland. The Govt. of Nagland may purchase upto 50% or above of the total share of the Federation. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Bye-Laws, the nominee of the State Govt. shall be deemed to be the member of the Federation for attending and voting at the meeting of the General Body of the Federation. d) D-Category-consisting of trader, commission agent, Merchants etc. having dealing with the Federation, D-Category members will not have any right to vote or to participate in the management. The shares of the MARCOFED are mentioned in Article 10 of the Bye-Laws which reads as follows: 10. d) D-Category-consisting of trader, commission agent, Merchants etc. having dealing with the Federation, D-Category members will not have any right to vote or to participate in the management. The shares of the MARCOFED are mentioned in Article 10 of the Bye-Laws which reads as follows: 10. Authorised share capital of the Federation shall be Rs.5,00,00,000.00 (Rupees five crore)(sic) only divided into 10,00,000 shares of Rs.50.00 each fully paid up and classed as under: 1) ORDINARY SHARES: Ordinary shares of the value of Rs.2,50,00,000.00 (5,00,000) shall be reserved for the Co-op, societies, and agriculturists and sympathiser. Redeemable preference shares of Rs.2,50,00,000.00 (500000) shall be issued to the Govt. of Nagaland only. 10 (1) If the member fails to pay any instalment due to his/its share or shares within 30 days of the date or fixed for such payment, the share or shares in respect of which the default has been made may be forfeited at the discretion of the Board of Directors and become the property of the society and may be disposed of by the Board of Directors as it may think fit, but 15 days before such forfeiture is made, a notice in writing shall be given to the member in default. 10(2)(i) No individual members other than the Govt. of Nagaland and the Cooperative Institution shall hold such portion of the share capital as may exceed 1/5th of the issued share capital or Rs.10,000.00 whichever is less. (jj) With the sanction of the Board of Directors, a member may at any time increase number of shares hold by him provided the value does not exceed the limit laid down in Clause (i) above. The Board of Directors of the MARCOFED are mentioned in Article 22 of its Bye-Laws which reads as follows: 22. (1) The management of the Federation shall vest in a Board of Directors consisting 11 (eleven) elected representatives of the Co-operative societies of the State in the Annual General Meeting and 4(four) nominated representatives of the State govt. as mentioned below: 1. One Director representing either Consumers' Co-op, society or Large area Multipurpose Coop. Society (LAMP) having consumer business from each of the 7 (seven) Districts of the state -7 Nos. 2. Two Directors representing Marketing Societies of the State -2 Nos. 3. 1 (one) Director representing 'B' Category members i.e. individual cultivators and sympathizers. -1 No. 4. as mentioned below: 1. One Director representing either Consumers' Co-op, society or Large area Multipurpose Coop. Society (LAMP) having consumer business from each of the 7 (seven) Districts of the state -7 Nos. 2. Two Directors representing Marketing Societies of the State -2 Nos. 3. 1 (one) Director representing 'B' Category members i.e. individual cultivators and sympathizers. -1 No. 4. One Director from the NSCB Ltd. -1 No. 5. The Commissioner/Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland, Supply Deptt. -1 No. 6. The Commissioner/Secretary/Addl. Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland, Cooperation Deptt. -1 No. 7. The Registrar of Coop. Societies/Add. RCS, Nagaland -1 No. 8. The Managing Director, Nagaland State Coop. Marketing and Consumers Federation Ltd. -1 No. TOTAL = 15 Nos. 4. It may be pertinent to mention that the Government of Nagaland issued a notification being No. PAR-2/NCS/Pt. dated Kohima, the 12th November, 1996 that "the Governor of Nagaland is pleased to order that the following posts shall be filled up on deputation from the officers belonging to Nagaland Civil Services: (1) The Secretary, Nagaland1 Public Service Commission; (2) The Secretary Vigilance Commission; (3) The Managing Director, NIDC; (4) The Managing Director. MARCOFED; (5) The Managing Director, NIRMSC, and (6) The Project Director, DRDA". Under Article 23 of the Bye-Laws, a paid employee of the MARCOFED cannot be the member of the Board of Directors. The Chairman of the Board of Directors of the MARCOFED would be the Commissioner/Secretary, the Govt. of Nagaland, Supply Deptt., under Article 24 of the Bye-Laws. The Managing Director of the MARCOFED is to be appointed by the Govt. of Nagaland under Article 22(8) of the Bye-Laws. The power and duties of the Board of Directors are mentioned in Article 26 which reads as follows: 26. (1) Powers and duties of the Board of Directors; The powers and duties of the Board of Directors shall be; 1. To dispose of application for membership and for shares and their transfer. 2. To raise loans and prescribe conditions on which deposits may be raised. 3. To collect amount payable on shares and repayments of loans or advances: 4. To sanction working expenses, 5. To collect the accounts of the society and count the cash balance. 6. To prepare the annual report and balance sheet. 7. To appoint, suspend, punish or dismiss all salaried servants of the Federation of the excluding Managing Director of Federation. 3. To collect amount payable on shares and repayments of loans or advances: 4. To sanction working expenses, 5. To collect the accounts of the society and count the cash balance. 6. To prepare the annual report and balance sheet. 7. To appoint, suspend, punish or dismiss all salaried servants of the Federation of the excluding Managing Director of Federation. The appointment and disposal of the Managing Director be subject to the approval of the Registrar of Coop, societies. 8. To institute, defend or compromise legal proceedings. 9. To arrange for marketing and sale of agricultural and other commodities of the members to the best advantage; 10. To arrange for purchase of agricultural produce and implements consumers goods and other necessaries of life and if need be, to arrange for storage, distribution and sale of such goods. 11. To examine the stock register and verify the stock. 12. To test the sales weights and measures in use of the Federation at regular intervals. 13. To acquire or lease premises for accommodating the Federation's Office and store goods, 14. To arrange for insurance against loss of agricultural produce and implements and other consumer goods handled by the member societies or by the Federation itself by fine if possible against loss of premises and other goods at reasonable market rates. 15. To receive agricultural produce for sale and to arrange for its grading and processing whenever possible. 16. To prepare a list of trustworthy suppliers or merchants, through whom or to whom the produce may be disposed or whether the society has to take risk or granting trade credit and to fix limits upto which credit may be fixed. The individual and maximum trade credits may be altered with the previous approval of the Central Financing Agency. 17. To take security from the employees handling cash, goods and securities on a scale not lower than the one prescribed by the Registrar. 18. To consider the audit memo, take action on the instructions contained therein and to submit the audit rectification report to the Internal Auditor or other authorities. Within two months of the date of receipt the audit memo and to place the audit memo and rectification before the next General Meeting. 19. To appoint, suspend, punish or dismiss salaried staff of the society and to prescribe assessing duties on them. 20. Within two months of the date of receipt the audit memo and to place the audit memo and rectification before the next General Meeting. 19. To appoint, suspend, punish or dismiss salaried staff of the society and to prescribe assessing duties on them. 20. To arrange for supply of agricultural implements, consumers goods and other necessaries of life to the affiliated societies, 'B' class members and as well as to non-members. 21. To arrange for purchase out right of the produce of the members and non-members and arrange for its sale subject to the following conditions: a) That the outright purchases are confined to such commodities as can find out a good market; b) That the total amount locked up does not any time exceed the owned funds of the Federation or one-tenth of the value of produce to the market whichever is higher. c) That separate amount should be maintained for the business done under the outright purchase system. 22. To obtain from primary societies a list of members, who have signed agreements for sale of their produce through the marketing society, together with copies of agreements and to credit the recoveries from the sale of produce of such members in the Central Financing Agency towards their duties in respect of production finance granted to them by primary societies. 23. To appoint executive committee from members of the Board and one or more subcommittee amongst members to carry out specific work of the Federation. 24. Generally to conduct business of the Federation as per object under Bye-Laws No. 2. 25. To endorse, sell, transfer or otherwise deal with shares, Government and other securities on behalf of the Federation and to delegate the powers to one or more member of the Board of Directors and the Managing Director. 5. The Petitioner of the W.P. (C) No. 123 (K) of 2002 is an employee union duty registered having its registration No. LBR-08/80, dated 06.11.80 and Head Office at Dimapur, Nagaland. The members of the Petitioner-union of W.P. (C) No. 123 (K) of 2002 are the paid employee (other than the Officers) of the MARCOFED, and the Petitioners of the W.P. (C) No. 15(K) of2003 are also the paid employees (Officers) of the MARCOFED. 6. The members of the Petitioner-union of W.P. (C) No. 123 (K) of 2002 are the paid employee (other than the Officers) of the MARCOFED, and the Petitioners of the W.P. (C) No. 15(K) of2003 are also the paid employees (Officers) of the MARCOFED. 6. At the very outset of the hearing of the present writ petitions, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners are seeking only for a direction to the Respondents to pay the salaries to the members of the Petitioner-union, i.e. the writ Petitioners of the W.P. (C) No. 123 (K) of 2002 and the writ Petitioners of W.P. (C) No. 15(K) of 2003, with effect from September, 2000 till date and regularly and they are not pressing the other relives sought for in these two writ petitions. In other words, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, as advised by the writ Petitioners, submits that the writ Petitioners are not pressing the other relieves sought for in the present two writ petitions except the direction to pay their pay and allowances for the periods mentioned above. The Petitioners are facing a great financial hardship and at present they are facing starvation because of the non-payment of their pay and allowances for a long period since September, 2000 till date by the Respondents. 7. This Court passed an interim order dated 29.7.2002 in the present writ petition, i.e. W.P. (C) No. 123 (K) of 2002, directing the Respondent Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 to pay the salaries of the Petitioners for at least 6(six) months within 3 months from the date a copy of the order was served on them. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioners the Respondents had paid the salaries of the Petitioners for the said period of six months, i.e. from September, 2002 upto February, 2003. The Respondents 1 to 4 also filed their affidavit-in-opposition dated 12.10.2002 and the additional affidavit-in-opposition dated 8.4.2005. In para No. 4 of the addl. affidavit-in-opposition of the Respondents 1 to 4 dated 8.4.2005, the shareholders in the MARCOFED are clearly mentioned. The said para-4 reads as follows: 4. That the Share Holders in Marcofed are as follows: A. Co-Operatives Societies. There are 179 (one hundred and seventy nine) Co-operative societies holding shares in Marcofed and their total share value is Rs.1,00,700/- (Rupees one lakh seven hundred) only. The said para-4 reads as follows: 4. That the Share Holders in Marcofed are as follows: A. Co-Operatives Societies. There are 179 (one hundred and seventy nine) Co-operative societies holding shares in Marcofed and their total share value is Rs.1,00,700/- (Rupees one lakh seven hundred) only. These co-operative societies are societies that have been registered under the Assam Co-operative Societies Act of 1949. B. Individual Members. That the individual members have 11 shares having a total share value of Rs.4,300/-. C. The Stale Govt. has 1 (one) share and the share value is Rs.2,26,53,500/- (Rupees two crores twenty six lakhs fifty three thousand five hundred) only. 8. From the bare perusal of the said para-4 of the additional affidavit-in-oppositioti, it is clear that out of the total shares Rs.2,27,58,500/- (Rupees two crores twenty seven lakhs fifty eight thousand five hundred), the share value of the Government of Nagaland is Rs.2,26,53,500/- (Rupees two crores twenty six lakhs fifty three thousand five hundred) only and as such the share value of the other members is only Rs.1,05,000/- (Rupees one lakh five thousand) only. Therefore, it is clear that the MARCOFED is owned/run by the State Govt. of Nagaland. The MARCOFED is also managed and controlled by the State Govt. of Nagaland inasmuch as the Chairman, the Managing Director and other important functionaries are all senior officers of the Govt. of Nagaland. 9. The Apex Court in Ajay Hasia and Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ors., reported in (1981) 1 SCC 722 held that even the society under the Societies Registration Act is an instrumentality, i.e. "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India for the reason that the State Govt. and by reasons of the provisions for the approval, the Central Govt. also have full control of the working of the society and society is merely a projection of the State and Central Govt. and the voice is that of the State and the Central Govt. and hence, are also that of the State and Central Govt. The Apex Court in State of U.P. and Ors. v. Renusagar Power Co. and Ors. reported in (1988) 4 SCC 59 held that the corporate veil can be lifted to determine as to whether the subsidiary company and holding company functioning independently or subsidiary company having no separate existence. Paras 67 and 68 of SCC in Renusagar Power Co. The Apex Court in State of U.P. and Ors. v. Renusagar Power Co. and Ors. reported in (1988) 4 SCC 59 held that the corporate veil can be lifted to determine as to whether the subsidiary company and holding company functioning independently or subsidiary company having no separate existence. Paras 67 and 68 of SCC in Renusagar Power Co. and Ors. (Supra) read as follows: 67. In the aforesaid view of the matter we are of the opinion that the corporate veil should be lifted and Hindalco and Renusagar be treated as one concern and Renusagar's power plant must be treated as the own source of generation of Hindalco and should be liable to duty on that basis. In the premises the consumption of such energy by Hindalco will fall under Section 3(1)(c) of the Act. The learned Additional Advocate General for the State relied on several decisions, some of which have been noted. 68. The veil on corporate personality even though not lifted sometimes, is becoming more and more transparent in modem company jurisprudence. The ghost of Salomon case still visits frequently the hounds of Company Law but the veil has been pierced in many cases. Some of these have been noted by Justice P.B. Mukharji in the New Jurisprudence. The Apex Court in New Horizons Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in (1995) 1 SCC 478 held that the Court can see through the corporate veil to ascertain the true nature of the company. The doctrine of lifting the veil or piercing the veil or peeping or seeing through the veil is invoked when the corporate personality is found to be opposed to justice, convenience or in respect of revenues. In the instant case, after lifting veil, it is clear that the MARCOFED is an instrumentality of the State Govt. of Nagaland within the meaning of "State" mentioned in Article 12 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the MARCOFED, as stated, is owned by the State Govt. and also managed and controlled by the State Govt. of Nagaland through their officers. 10. The Article 23 of the Constitution of India prohibits any form of force labour. The Apex Court in The Managing Director, U.P. Warehousing Corporation and Anr. and also managed and controlled by the State Govt. of Nagaland through their officers. 10. The Article 23 of the Constitution of India prohibits any form of force labour. The Apex Court in The Managing Director, U.P. Warehousing Corporation and Anr. v. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee, reported in (1980) 3 SCC 459 held that: There is hardly any distinction on principle between a person directly under the employment of the government and a person under the employment of an agency or instrumentality of the government or a corporate, set up under a statute or incorporated but wholly owned by the government. There is therefore no good reason why, if government is bound to observe the equality clauses of the Constitution in the matter of employment and in its dealings with the employees, the corporations set up or owned by the government should not be equally bound. Some element of public employment is at all that is necessary to take the employee beyond the reach of the rule which denies him access to a Court to enforce a contract of employment and denies him the protection of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Employment in the public sector has grown to vast dimensions and employees in the public sector often discharge as onerous duties as civil servants and participate in activities vital to our country's economy. Therefore, persons in the service of local authorities, government companies and statutory corporations have been declared by the Parliament and the State legislatures as public servants and the protection usually extended to civil servants from suits and prosecution have been extended to them by express enactments. It is, therefore, but right that the independence and integrity of those employed in the public sector should be secured as much as independence and integrity of civil servants. The concept of "force labour" contemplated in Article 23 of the Constitution of India had been discussed by the Apex Court in People's Union for Democratic Rights and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in (1982) 3 SCC 235 and held that: Labour which is rendered not willingly but as a result of force or compulsion is 'forced labour'. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in (1982) 3 SCC 235 and held that: Labour which is rendered not willingly but as a result of force or compulsion is 'forced labour'. Any factor which deprives a person of a choice of alternatives and compels him to adopt one particular course of action may properly be regarded as 'force' and if labour or service is compelled as a result of such 'force', it would be 'forced labour'. The word 'force' must be construed to include not only physical or legal force but also force arising from the compulsion of economic circumstances which leaves no choice of alternatives to a person want and compels him to provide labour or service(sic) even though the remuneration received for it is less than the minimum wage. Therefore, where a person provides labour or service to Anr. for remuneration which is less than the minimum wage, the labour service provided by him clearly fells within the scope and ambit of the word 'forced labour' under Article 23. Such a person would be entitled to come to the Court for enforcement of his fundamental right under Article 23 by asking the Court to direct payment of the minimum wage to him. 11. It is now well settled that the 'life' employed in Article 21 of the Constitution of India does not merely connote animal existence or continued drudgery through life, has a much wider meaning. The Apex Court in Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1983 SC 328 : 1983 Lab. I.C. 312 held that: 4. The state cannot be permitted to take advantage of the helpless condition of the affected persons and exact labour or service from them on payment of less than the minimum wage. No work of utility and value can be allowed to be construed on the blood and sweat of persons who are reduced to a state of helplessness on account of drought and scarcity conditions. The State cannot under the guise of helping these affected persons exact work of utility and value from them without paying them the minimum wage. No work of utility and value can be allowed to be construed on the blood and sweat of persons who are reduced to a state of helplessness on account of drought and scarcity conditions. The State cannot under the guise of helping these affected persons exact work of utility and value from them without paying them the minimum wage. Whenever any labour or service is taken by the State from any persons, whether he be affected by drought and scarcity conditions or not, the State must pay, at the least, minimum wage to such person on pain of violation of Article 23 and the Exemption Act in so far as it excludes the applicability of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 to workmen employed on famine relief work and permits payment of less than the minimum wage to such workmen, must be held to be invalid as offending the provisions of Article 23. In the present case, this Court is of the view that the present case is squarely cover by the decisions of the Apex Court in a classic judgment in Kalipa Hingorani v. State of Bihar reported in (2003) 6 SCC 1 . The fact of the case of Kalipa Hingorani (Supra) is that hundreds of employees of various State owned corporations, public undertakings or other statutory bodies in Bihar had died due to starvation or committed suicide owing to acute financial crisis resulting from non-payment of remuneration for a long time. In that case, the State of Bihar took the plea that since most of the undertakings or companies were registered or incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, the rights and liabilities of the shareholders would be governed by that Act and the liabilities of the said companies could not be passed on to the State by taking recourse to the doctrine of "lifting the veil" or otherwise. In the Kapila Hingorani (Supra) the Apex Court held that as the State of Bihar had deep and pervasive controls over the affairs of the said Companies and since the companies and Corporations were "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India neither they nor the State of Bihar could escape their liability to enforce the rights of the citizens under the Article 21 and Article 23 of the Constitution of India. In that case the Apex Court formulated 4(four) questions which reads as follows: 1. In that case the Apex Court formulated 4(four) questions which reads as follows: 1. Whether in a case like the present one, the Court would take a sheer legal approach and hold that the corporate veil would not be lifted although its conscience stood satisfied that citizens' right to life and liberty under Article 21 had been violated? 2. Whether in the facts of the present case, the State of Bihar could be held to be liable to render all assistance to the said companies so as to fulfil its own and/or the corporations' obligations to comply with the citizens' rights under Articles 21 and 23? 3. Whether the State of Bihar could escape its liability having regard to the human rights problem involved in the matter? 4. Whether in such a case, the liability of the State of Bihar, if any, could be shifted to the Union of India? In Kapila Hingorani (Supra) the Apex Court held that in the situation of the nature in that case, the Court is obliged to issue necessary directions to mitigate the extreme hardship of the employee involving violation of human rights of the citizens of India at the hands of the State of Bihar and Government Companies and Corporations fully owned or controlled by it. The financial stringency cannot be a ground for not issuing requisite directions when a question of violation of fundamental right arises. Paras 63, 64, 65, 72 and 74 of SCC in Kapila Hingorani (Supra) read as follows: 63. The matter may be considered from Anr. angle. While the States expects the industrial houses and multinational companies to take such measures which would provide a decent life to the persons living in the society in general and to their employees in particular, in that premise is it too much to ask the State to practice what it preaches? This gives rise to Anr. question. Can the State be so insensitive to the plight of its own citizens in general and the employees of the public sector undertaking in particular? 64. The Court in a situation of this nature is obliged to issue necessary directions to mitigate the extreme hardship of the employees involving violation of human rights of the citizens of India at the hands of the State of Bihar and the government companies and corporations folly owned or controlled by it. 64. The Court in a situation of this nature is obliged to issue necessary directions to mitigate the extreme hardship of the employees involving violation of human rights of the citizens of India at the hands of the State of Bihar and the government companies and corporations folly owned or controlled by it. A right to carry on business is subject to compliance with constitutional obligations as also limitations provided for in the Constitution. 65. Financial stringency may not be a ground for not issuing requisite directions when a question of violation of fundamental right arises. This Court has been highlighting this aspect in the matters concerning fundamental rights and maintenance of ecology. (See Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardichan and B.L. Wadehra (Dr.) v. Union of India). In all India Imam Organization v. Union of India this Court held: (SCC p. 589, para 6). 6... Much was argued on behalf of the Union and the wakf boards that their financial position was not such that they can meet the obligations of paying the imams as they are being paid in the state of Punjab. It was also urged that the number of mosques is so large that it would entail heavy expenditure which the boards of different States would not be able to bear. We do not find any correlation between the two. Financial difficulties of the institution cannot be above fundamental right of a citizen. If the boards have been entrusted with the responsibility of supervising and administering the wakf then it is their duty to harness resources to pay those persons who perform the most important duty, namely, of leading community prayer in a mosque the very purpose for which it is created. (emphasis supplied) 72. We are of the opinion that the State, thus, has made itself liable to mitigate the sufferings of the employees of the public sector undertakings or the government companies. 74. We, however, hasten to add that we do not intend to lay down a law, as at present advised, that the State is directly or vicariously liable to pay salaries/remunerations of the employees of the public sector undertakings of the government companies in all situations. 74. We, however, hasten to add that we do not intend to lay down a law, as at present advised, that the State is directly or vicariously liable to pay salaries/remunerations of the employees of the public sector undertakings of the government companies in all situations. We, as explained hereinbefore, only say that the stair cannot escape its liability when a human rigl(sic) problem of such magnitude involving the starvation deaths and/or suicide by the employees has taken place by reason of non-payment of salary to the employees of public sector undertakings for such a long time. We are not issuing any direction as against the state of Jharkhand as no step had admittedly been taken by the Central Government in terms of Section 65 of the State Reorganization Act and furthermore as only four public sector undertakings have been transferred to the State of Jharkhand in respect whereof the Petitioner does not make any grievance. 12. In the present case, the Petitioners are working as a 'forced labour' in MARCOFED inasmuch as they are working without pay and allowances which is forbidden by the Article 23 of the Constitution of India. The State Government of Nagaland and the Board of Director of the MARCOFED are taking the undue advantage of helplessness of the Petitioners inasmuch as the Petitioners are compelled to work as a paid employee of the MARCOFED from the compulsion of economic circles which lives no choice of alternative to the Petitioners after they have been working for a number of years in the MARCOFED, and almost all the Petitioners are now over aged for seeking new employment and many of them are also at the verge of their retirement. 13. For the reasons discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that the MARCOFED and the State Govt. of Nagaland are jointly and/or severally liable to pay the pending salaries to the Petitioners. Accordingly, the Respondents are directed to pay the arrear pay and allowances of the Petitioners and regularly thereafter. 13. For the reasons discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that the MARCOFED and the State Govt. of Nagaland are jointly and/or severally liable to pay the pending salaries to the Petitioners. Accordingly, the Respondents are directed to pay the arrear pay and allowances of the Petitioners and regularly thereafter. It is made clear that the Respondents are, further, directed to hold an enquiry to find out as to who are the paid employees, i.e. the writ Petitioners, actually working in the MARCOFED and the period they had worked for the purposes of paying their arrear pay and allowances and the enquiry should be completed within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of this judgment and order. After completing the said enquiry their pay and allowances should be paid within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of completion of the enquiry and thereafter regularly. 14. To the extent above, these two writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.