Allahabad High Court
NASIRUDDINversusU.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION AND OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The appellate authority lacked power to enhance the punishment, but the writ petition is dismissed as non‑maintainable because the respondent has become a private entity.
Summary
The petitioner, a labourer, was disciplined for alleged theft and punished with stoppage of three annual increments on 9 November 1998. He appealed under Clause 'O' of the Standing Order of the Sugar Industry of U.P., but the appellate authority not only disagreed with the disciplinary order but enhanced the punishment to dismissal on 17 December 1999. The High Court held that the appellate authority had no statutory power to increase the penalty, rendering the dismissal order illegal. However, the court found the writ petition non‑maintainable because the employer, U.P. State Sugarcane Corporation Unit Bijnor, had been disinvested and taken over by a private company, Wave Industries Ltd., and therefore fell outside the court’s extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Applying the precedent of R.S. Madireddy, the court dismissed the petition but allowed the petitioner to approach the Labour Court for relief.
Issues considered
- The appellate authority under Clause 'O' of the Standing Order had power to enhance the disciplinary punishment.
- Whether a writ petition filed against a government employer remains maintainable after the employer is privatized.
- Whether the delay in disposal of the writ petition affects its maintainability.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
Subjects
- labour law
- disciplinary proceedings
- appellate authority
- writ jurisdiction
- privatization
- Article 226
- standing orders
- dismissal
- increment stoppage
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 10539 of 2000
Nasiruddin
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
U.P. State Sugar Corporation and others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : A.k.srivastava, Alok Kumar Srivastava,
Amit Kumar, M.a. Khan, M.a. Zaidi,
Sanjay Kumar Rai, Sharad Kumar
Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Dr.y.k.srivastav, Rajesh D. Khare, S.C.,
Tarun Agrawal
A.F.R.
Reserved on 28.4.2026
Delivered on 05.5.2026
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Sri S.K.Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.K.
Srivastava and Sri Shashank Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This Writ Petition is of the year 2000. Court finds that petitioner has a good
case however, due to subsequent events whereby sugar factory in State of U.P.
i.e., U.P. State Sugarcane Corporation Unit Bijnor has now been disinvested
and it was taken over by a private player namely; Wave Industries Private
Ltd. has now rendered this writ petition not maintainable. (see R.S. Madireddy
and Anr. Vs. Union of India and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 965.
3.The facts which are not under dispute are that the petitioner a Labour had
faced a disciplinary proceedings, on a charge of theft, wherein he was awarded
2
WRIA No. - 10539 of 2000
a punishment of stoppage of 3 annual increments with cumulative effect vide
an order dated 9/11.6.1998.
4. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal in terms of Clause 'O' of Standing
Order of Sugar Industry U.P. (Decision of Manager to be final, subject to right
of appeal), which does not provide any specific procedure to decide the
Appeals. However, Appellate Authority not only put its disagreement with the
order of Disciplinary Authority but enhanced the punishment and passed an
order of dismissal from service vide an order dated 17.12.1999, the order
impugned.
5. Court finds merit in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner so
far as impugned order is concerned that without any specific power to enhance
the punishment in a statutory appeal, impugned order whereby punishment
was enhanced from three permanent stoppage of annual increments to
dismissal from service would not legally survive. Court also takes note of a
judgment passed by this Court in Ravi Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & 3 Ors,
2024:AHC:85116-DB.
6. However, as referred above, there is a legal impediment to pass an order
today since now the writ petition is not maintainable due to subsequent events
as a private player has taken over the company.
7. Aforesaid referred position of law in R.S. Madireddy (Supra) is not being
disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner also. For reference relevant
paragraphs of it is reproduced hereinafter :
“38. The question of issuing a writ would only arise when the writ
petition is being decided. Thus, the issue about exercise of extra
ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
would arise only on the date when the writ petitions were taken up for
consideration and decision. The respondent No. 3(AIL)- employer was
a government entity on the date of filing of the writ petitions, which
came to be decided after a significant delay by which time, the
company had been disinvested and taken over by a private player.
Since, respondent No. 3 employer had been disinvested and had
assumed the character of a private entity not performing any public
function, the High Court could not have exercised the extra ordinary
writ jurisdiction to issue a writ to such private entity. The learned
Division Bench has taken care to protect the rights of the appellants to
3
WRIA No. - 10539 of 2000
seek remedy and thus, it cannot be said that the appellants have been
non-suited in the case. It is only that the appellants would have to
approach another forum for seeking their remedy. Thus, the question
No. 2 is decided against the appellants.
39. By no stretch of imagination, the delay in disposal of the writ
petitions could have been a ground to continue with and maintain the
writ petitions because the forum that is the High Court where the writ
petitions were instituted could not have issued a writ to the private
respondent which had changed hands in the intervening period. Hence,
the question No. 3 is also decided against the appellants.
40. Resultantly, the view taken by the Division Bench of the Bombay
High Court in denying equitable relief to the appellants herein and
relegating them to approach the appropriate forum for ventilating their
grievances is the only just and permissible view.”
8. In the aforesaid circumstances, though the Court finds that impugned order
cannot survive on law, still, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The
judgment of R.S. Madireddy (Supra) applies in present case not only on facts
but on law also and this writ petition is dismissed being not maintainable.
However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the Labour Court if so
advise and in case any proceeding is initiated before Labour Court, delay if
any, can be condoned since this writ petition was pending for about 25 years
before this Court and Labour Court will take endeavour to decide the
proceedings if initiated expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.)
May 05, 2026
SB/NS
Digitally signed by :-
NIRMAL SINHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…