Govind Nagar Sugar Mill vs Prescribed Authority Under the Uttar Pradesh and 208 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Govind Nagar Sugar Mill vs Prescribed Authority Under the Uttar Pradesh and 208 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim stay of the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 12.02.2026 in T.P. Case No. 07 of 2025 until the next date of listing (case to be put up fresh on 17.08.2026); respondents to file counter affidavit within four weeks and rejoinder, if any, within two weeks thereafter. Petition remains pending; no final relief determined.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Prescribed Authority constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978 has jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputed claim relating to retention allowance, or whether such dispute could only be adjudicated under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Rules framed thereunder. +2 more

Ratio / Principle

The court found that the matter requires consideration and entertained the petition for further hearing.

Key takeaways

The court observed, prima facie, that the retention-allowance claim raised after a considerable lapse of time requires examination with regard to delay and laches, which at that stage had not been satisfactorily explained.obiter¶16
Learned counsel for the respondents was permitted/directed to file a counter affidavit within four weeks, with rejoinder affidavit, if any, within two weeks thereafter.ratio¶18
As an interim measure, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 12.02.2026 passed by respondent no.1 in T.P. Case No. 07 of 2025 was stayed until the next date of listing.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar, J.), Writ - C No. 10571 of 2026, decided 12.05.2026: Writ petition by M/s Govind Nagar Sugar Mill assailing the order dated 12.02.2026 of respondent no.1, the Prescribed Authority under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978 / Deputy Labour Commissioner, Basti Division, Basti, in T.P. Case No. 07 of 2025 (Satyendra Bahadur Singh and others vs. M/s Govind Nagar Sugar Mill), directing payment of retention allowance to workmen. Petitioner contended the establishment closed on 06.03.2018 with no crushing activity or wage payments thereafter, and that the Prescribed Authority lacked jurisdiction over retention-allowance claims, which lay under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rules framed thereunder. Respondents' counsel fairly stated no wages were paid after closure. The court observed prima facie that the belated claim required examination on delay and laches, not satisfactorily explained at that stage; sought counter affidavit within four weeks and rejoinder within two weeks; and stayed the effect and operation of the impugned order till the next date, the case being listed fresh on 17.08.2026.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - C No. - 10571 of 2026

Govind Nagar Sugar Mill

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Prescribed Authority Under The Uttar Pradesh And 208 Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhijit Chatterji, Diptiman Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Swapnil Srivastava

Court No. - 37

HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

The present petition has been preferred assailing the impugned order dated 12.02.2026 passed by respondent no.1- the Prescribed Authority under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978/Deputy Labour Commissioner, Basti Division, Basti in T.P. Case No. 07 of 2025, titled Satyendra Bahadur Singh and others vs. M/s Govind Nagar Sugar Mill , whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay retention allowance to the concerned workmen.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the establishment in question was closed on 06.03.2018 and since then no crushing activity has been carried out in the factory. It is further submitted that no wages have been paid to any employee after closure of the establishment, as no work was being undertaken by the factory. He next contends that the Prescribed Authority constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978 lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputed claim relating to retention allowance, and such dispute, if any, could only be adjudicated under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Rules framed thereunder.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the workmen are entitled to retention allowance under the applicable service conditions and statutory provisions. However, when confronted with the issue regarding payment of wages after the year 2018, it has been fairly stated that no wages were paid to the employees after closure of the factory operations. Prima facie, the claim having been raised after a considerable

WRIC No. 10571 of 2026

2

lapse of time also requires examination, particularly with regard to delay and laches, which at this stage has not been satisfactorily explained.

Matter requires consideration.

Learned counsel for the respondents may file counter affidavit within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

Put up this case as fresh on 17.08.2026.

Till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 12.02.2026 passed by respondent no.1 in T.P. Case No. 07 of 2025 shall remain stayed.

May 12, 2026 Anil K. Sharma

(Vinod Diwakar,J.)

Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad