STATE OF U.P. THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER IRRIGATION DIV.IIversusP.O. LABOUR COURT GORAKHPUR AND ANOTHER

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                         WRIT - C No. - 43781 of 2000


State Of U.P. Through Executive Engineer
Irrigation Div.Ii                                               .....Petitioner(s)
                                     Versus

P.O. Labour Court Gorakhpur And Another
                                                              .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)         : S.C.
Counsel for Respondent(s)         : Ashish Kumar Srivastava, Atul Kumar
                                    Srivastava, B.N.Tripathi, C.S.C., Gopal
                                    Narain, Shyam Narain

With Writ Petition Nos.43784 of 2000, 55017 of 2000 and 55028 of 2000,


Court No. - 36

            HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. Heard Sri P. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri
A.K.Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Contesting respondents have claimed that they have worked on muster
roll for 10 to 15 years and they were allegedly retrenched without
complying with the relevant provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act,
therefore, an industrial dispute was raised. During proceedings on basis of
a muster roll, it was directed that since all contesting respondents have
worked for 240 days in a year, therefore, impugned award was passed
whereby direction was passed to reinstate all the contesting respondents
with entire backwages.

3. Above referred award was challenged by the employer i.e. Irrigation
Department wherein a conditional order was passed on 12.10.2000 and
for reference said order is reproduced hereinafter:

     "Heard Sri C.K.Rai, learned standing counsel on behalf of the
     petitioner. Sri Gopal Narain takes notice on behalf of
     respondent no. 2. Let him file counter affidavit within six
     weeks.
     List immediately thereafter.
                                                      WRIC No. 43781 of 2000
                               2


     In the meantime the award dated 7.9.1999 published on
     6.4.2000 shall remain stayed provided the petitioner deposits
     the entire back wages payable to the respondent no. 2 with
     respondent no. 1 within two months from today. If it is done,
     this amount shall be invested for the benefit of respondent no. 2
     in some fixed term deposit in some Nationalised Bank initially
     for a period of one year so that it may earn interest. This
     deposit shall be held by respondent no. 1 subject to the ultimate
     decision of this writ petition.
     As regards the re-instatement of respondent no. 2 employee it
     is directed that on submitting the joining report by respondent
     no. 2 the petitioner shall take him in service. However, it shall
     be kept open to the petitioner to take work from him or not but
     his current salary shall continue to be paid. It is further
     directed that on any point of time respondent no. 2 is found to
     be engaged in some gainful employment the petitioner shall be
     entitled to stop payment of the current salary."

4. It appears that during pendency of this writ petition aforesaid
conditional interim order was not complied with and contesting
respondents were not granted appointment.

5. Some orders were passed by this Court and affidavit were also
exchanged and some of the contesting respondents were granted an
amount of about Rs.3.5 lakhs also, except contesting respondent in Writ
petition No.55017 of 2000.

6. Admittedly, all contesting respondents have crossed age of
superannuation and presently they are about 65-70 years and one of the
contesting respondent has expired also.

7. In the aforesaid circumstances, at this stage no reinstatement can be
granted.

8. By way of earlier orders, Court has asked contesting respondents to
come up with outstanding amount and some of them have filed affidavits
also and raised demand of more than Rs.10 lakhs.
                                                                                           WRIC No. 43781 of 2000
                                                                    3


                                    9. Be that as it may, considering above referred circumstances and since
                                    the matter is pending for last more than two and half decades and there
                                    was a conditional interim order also and that contesting respondents have
                                    earlier worked for 10 to 15 years, therefore, in view of a judgment passed
                                    by Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Krishna Murari
                                    Sharma, 2025 INSC 1500, Court is of view that all contesting
                                    respondents/legal heirs are entitled for one time lump sum amount of
                                    Rs.2.5 lakhs over and above amount if already paid. In case, any of the
                                    contesting respondent was not paid any amount during pendency of this
                                    writ petition, said contesting respondent will be entitled for additional
                                    amount of Rs.1.5 lakhs.

                                    10. Aforesaid amount shall be paid to the contesting respondents or their
                                    legal heirs as the case may be within a period of six months.

                                    11. Accordingly, all writ petitions are disposed of.



                                                                               (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
                                    September 15, 2026
                                    SB




Digitally signed by :-
SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad