U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. Lko. Thru. M.D. and 2 Others vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Labour Employment New Delhi and 2 Others

Heard Shri P.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Dilip Kumar Verma, Advocate holding brief of Shri Rajesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3.

¶12

Shri Dilip Kumar Verma, Advocate has sought adjournment of the case on the ground that Shri Rajesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 is on sanctioned leave from 13.12.2025 to 19.12.2025. He has stated that there are other counsel also to represent the respondent nos.2 and 3 but this writ petition has been allotted to Shri Rajesh Kumar Verma.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioners pressed for hearing of the application for interim relief today itself as there is urgency in the matter. He submits that in case any learned counsel representing respondent nos.2 and 3 were not available, since it has the services of other advocates also, the respondent nos.2 and 3 ought to have deputed some other learned counsel to represent them before this Court.

¶14

Keeping in view the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioners about the urgency of the matter, the Court proceeds to hear his submissions.

¶15

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the impugned notice dated 26.09.2022, prohibitory order under Section

¶16

WRIC No. 12293 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

8G of EPF and MP Act, 1952 dated 28.08.2025 and attachment and freezing order dated 19.11.2025 issued by the Recovery Officer, Employees Provide Fund Organization, Lucknow.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Recovery Officer is pressing for recovery of the arrears of provident fund accrued prior to September, 1984 when the UP State Sugar Corporation Ltd. had acquired Laxmi Sugar and Oil Mills, Hardoi. This acquisition was made vide Section 3 of Uttar Pradesh Sugar Undertaking (Acquisition) Act, 1971 which provides that every scheduled undertaking shall, stand and be deemed to have stood transferred to and vest and be deemed to have vested in the Corporation free from any debt, mortgage, charge or other encumbrance or lien, trust or similar obligation attaching the undertaking. He further submits that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner had filed Claim No.40/19/85/97-98 before the prescribed authority, which claim was rejected by means of an order dated 16.02.2002 holding that the sugar corporation is not liable for any dues that accrued prior to 28.09.1984. The Reasonable Provident Fund Commissioner has filed Appeal No.1/2005 against the aforesaid order dated 16.02.2002 which is still pending and no adjudication has been made by the Appellate Authority and no order has been passed holding the petitioners liable for payment of dues related to the period prior to 28.09.1984.

¶20

Prima face, the aforesaid submissions appear to carry force.

¶21

The respondents may file counter affidavit within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶22

List this case in the week commencing 02.02.2026.

¶23

Meanwhile, as an interim measure, it is provided that the operation, implementation and execution of impugned notice dated 26.09.2022, prohibitory order under Section 8G of EPF and MP Act, 1952 dated 28.08.2025 and attachment and freezing order dated 19.11.2025 issued by the Recovery Officer, Employees Provide Fund Organization, Lucknow (annexed as Annexure Nos.1, 2 & 3 respectively to the writ petition) shall remain stayed.

¶24

WRIC No. 12293 of 2025

¶25

3

¶26

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶27

December 17, 2025

¶28

V. Sinha

¶29

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. Lko. Thru. M.D. and 2 Others v. U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Labour Employment New Delhi and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. Lko. Thru. M.D. and 2 Others v. U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Labour Employment New Delhi and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhiraj Kumar and 161 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Govt. Deptt. Medical Education and Training Lko. and 3 Others

Raghuvansh Mani and 2 Others vs Commissioner Devipatan Mandal Gonda and 7 Others

M/S Aviraj Trading Thru.Authorized Representative Mr.Jagdish vs State of U.P. Thru. Finance Secy. Ministry of Finance Lko. and 2 Others

Ram Samujh and Another vs District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar and Others

Santosh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Lko. and 4 Others vs Ramesh Kumar Srivastava and Another