Allahabad High Court
Brij Kumar Upadhyaya And Others vs State Of U.P.Through Secy.Dept.Of ... on 22 May, 2026
Author: Irshad Ali
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:37335
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - A No. - 5559 of 2010
Brij Kumar Upadhyaya And Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P.Through Secy.Dept.Of Sugar Lucknow And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
D.K.Singh Chauhan, Anand Kumar, Richa Pandey, Shesh Narain Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C., I.P.Singh
Court No. - 4
HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.
1. Heard Sri Shesh Narain Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 4 and Sri I.P. Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioners were initially appointed in the year 1983-84 on daily wage basis in the respondent-Sugar Mill and continued up to 19.2.1987 as their services have been terminated orally on 19.2.1987. Feeling aggrieved, they filed a case before the Labour Court, Faizabad, which was allowed vide order dated 19.5.1995 and the oral termination order was quashed.
3. The petitioners were reinstated in service in the year 1997 on seasonal basis till their superannuation. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, it has been admitted that the petitioners were engaged as daily labour from time to time and after 10.2.1987, they were disengaged, then they made a complaint before the State Government and in pursuance thereof reference under Section 4 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was made to the Labour Court, Faizabad. A claim was filed before the Labour Commissioner, Faizabad to pay the dues as minimum pay like basic wages, fixed allowances and variable dearness allowances.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the impugned order is in violation of order dated 28.12.2007 (Annexure-7), by which the petitioners were employed on pay scale of 3400-3950 on the post of Seasonal Labour including all other service benefits. The present writ petition has been filed for the payment of dues such as minimum pay like basic wages, fixed allowances and variable dearness allowances in accordance with the third wage board arrears, validity of recommendation, the third wage board for the Sugar Industry submitted its recommendations on 31.1.1989.
5. During the course of submission, learned counsel for the petitioners confined his submission to the extent that in case the petitioners be given liberty to file a representation for the payment of arrears of salary w.e.f. 28.12.2007 till the date of retirement and in case such a representation is filed, the respondent No.3 may pass an appropriate and speaking order in accordance with law, justice would be done.
6. For the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents have no objection in case direction, as aforesaid, is issued.
7. In view of the above, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the writ petition pending.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is finally disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh comprehensive representation ventilating all their grievances before the respondent No.3 within two weeks from today and in case such a representation is filed, the respondent No.3 shall consider the same and pass appropriate reasoned speaking order in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
9. The impugned order dated 30.6.2010 shall be subject to the order passed on the representation of the petitioners.
(Irshad Ali,J.) May 22, 2026 Gautam