2026:UHC:4242 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS 1145/2026 WPSS 330/2018 WPSS 337/2018 WPSS 981/2019 WPSS 848/2020 WPMS 3450/2024 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. M.C. Pant, Mr. Mukesh Singh Rawat and Mr. Manoj Kumar, Counsel for the petitioners. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Additional AG, with Mr. G.S. Negi, Additional CSC, for the State. Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate, for the sugar mill. (2) Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is identical, therefore, these are being heard and decided together by this common judgment. However, for brevity, facts of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 330 of 2018 alone are being considered and discussed here, in which petitioners have sought the following reliefs: “(I) a writ rule or direction in the nature of certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned orders dated 05.12.2017 and 06.12.2017 (contained as Annexure no.1&2 to this writ petition) and also to declare the impugned closure/lockout as declared by respondents illegal, sham and false and also void ab initio in league with the Govt. decision for the said closure after calling the entire records from the respondents and to declare the Workmen/petitioners in service with continuity salary and all other benefits had it been the impugned order was never in existence, keeping in view of the facts highlighted in the body of the writ petition and further to take decision for absorption of the petitioners in the other sugar factories of the State as per the earlier decision which was taken in respect of Gadarpur Sugar Unit. I(A) Issue writ, rule or direction declaring the impugned government order dated 29.08.2021; order dated 21.09.2021 of Managing Director, Uttarakhand Sugars; operation and maintenance agreement dated 29.09.2021 and work order dated 29.09.2021 so far as outsourced the work of operation and maintenance of the Kissan Sehkari Cheeni Mill, Sitarganj is arbitrary, unreasonable, and void and a nullity and also to declare that the imposition of the intermediary by way of the impugned orders and the outsourcing agency for the work 2026:UHC:4242 of operation and maintenance is an act of unfair labour practice and to deprive the Petitioners to continue in service an illegal change in their service condition and same is liable to be quashed and all the Petitioners are to be declared to be in service with continuity and all service benefits and back-wages, or to mould the relief appropriately by safeguarding the interest of the Petitioners keeping in view the the body of the facts highlighted in the writ Petition in the interest of justice. (II) a writ rule or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the State Govt. to take all the steps in term of section 3 of XXV of 1966 to acquire the unit of respondents at Pant Nagar and restart the same by formulating to rehabilitate the Workmen/petitioners and other similarly situated workers who will become unemployed and further to command the State Govt. and Labour Commissioner to release the amount equal to their last drawn wages and to pay same to the petitioners from the Uttarakhand Labour Funds month to month till such time the Scheme be framed by the State Govt. (III) a writ rule or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the respondents to take all the necessary steps against the respondents for social pollution and also to award damages in tune of Rs. 10.00 Crores or such amount which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper be imposed upon the employers and by the aforesaid amount a corpus fund be created to provide financial assistance to the labourers of the employer who are in starvation and also restrain the respondents to evict the petitioners from the residential accommodations in which their entry as per law and service conditions.” (3) Petitioners were appointed in Cooperative Sugar Mill, Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar in different years and they served in the said sugar mill till State Government decided to close the same. Petitioners have challenged the Government Order dated 5.12.2017, whereby decision to close the said sugar mill was communicated to the Managing Director, Uttarakhand Cooperative Sugar Mills Federation Ltd. (4) Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that in similar circumstances, another sugar mill, namely, Kisan Cooperative Sugar Mill, Gadarpur (Udham Singh Nagar) was also closed, pursuant to decision taken by the State Government, however there was a provision made in the government order that the employees of sugar mill at Gadarpur would either be entitled to seek VRS or those who do 2026:UHC:4242 not opt for VRS, efforts shall be made to adjust them in other cooperative sugar mills or government owned sugar mills. In support of that contention, reliance is placed on Government Order dated 29.9.2015, issued by Secretary, Cooperative Cane and Sugar Department. It is contended that since the sugar mill at Sitarganj and one at Gadarpur, both were in cooperative sector, therefore, employees of the sugar mill at Sitarganj are entitled to similar benefit, as was extended to employees of sugar mill at Gadarpur. It is thus contended that denial of the right of absorption in other sugar mills to employees of sugar mill at Sitarganj is unjust, when similar benefit was extended to employees of sugar mill at Gadarpur. (5) Learned State Counsel, however, submits that employees of sugar mill at Sitarganj, including the petitioners, were given right to apply for VRS; since petitioners did not opt for VRS, therefore, there was no question of granting VRS to them. Learned State Counsel as well as learned Counsel appearing for the sugar mill submit that such employees, who had applied for VRS, were given all benefits under the VRS Scheme. It is further contended that if petitioners were aggrieved by closure of sugar mill, then they have remedy to approach the Industrial Adjudicator under the Industrial Disputes Act, therefore writ petition would not be maintainable. It is further contended that the decision to close the sugar mill had to be taken because the sugar mill was running in huge losses for the last several years and efforts made for revival of sugar mill were unsuccessful. (6) Learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that the statement made by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the sugar mill is not correct; petitioners were not given any opportunity to apply for VRS, due to which they could not exercise their right. He further 2026:UHC:4242 submits that none of the dues of the petitioners has been released to them so far, therefore they are entitled to release of all dues with interest. (7) Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the sugar mill, however submits that all employees of the sugar mill were asked to apply for pending dues, however petitioners did not apply for release of their pending dues, therefore the dues could not be released in their favour. He, however, could not indicate any communication in this regard, issued by the General Manager of concerned sugar mill to the employees/petitioners. (8) Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the stipulation made in the Government Order dated 29.9.2015 regarding employees of sugar mill at Gadarpur that efforts will be made for their absorption in other sugar mills, this Court thinks that ends of justice would be met if petitioners are permitted to make representation to the State Government claiming similar benefit, as indicated in the Government Order dated 29.9.2015. If petitioners make such representation to the Secretary, Cane Development and Sugar Industries within three weeks from today, decision thereupon shall be taken by the concerned Secretary, as per law, within four months thereafter. Concerned Secretary shall also pass orders regarding release of pending dues of the petitioners within the same time and shall also consider whether petitioners are entitled to any statutory interest on the pending dues. (9) Interim order, if any, stands vacated. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 29.5.2026 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C9 1957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2026.05.29 14:53:26 +05'30' 2026:UHC:4242