JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition under Articel 226 of Constitution of India has been filed by 14 petitioners, namely, Hem Nath, Ram Shanker Gupta, Ram Narain, Smt. Meera Devi, Ram Babu, Subedar, Raja Ram, Suresh Chandra Pandey, Natthu Singh, Ram Roop Singh, Jai Kumar Singh, Smt. Savitri Devi, Jagroop Lal and Mool Chand, with a prayer to issue a writ of certiorari and quash letter dated 07.02.2001 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) issued by In-charge, General Manager, U.P. State Sugar Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “UPSSCL”) stating that it is making all efforts to clear the dues payable to employees under Voluntary Retirement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as “VRS”) and payment shall be made in due course of time except the dues which are not payable by UPSSCL. Petitioners have also sought a writ of mandamus commanding respondents to make entire payment along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum. 2. Facts, in brief, giving rise to present writ petition are that petitioners were appointed and absorbed as Seasonal Permanent Employee in UPSSCL, Unit Hardoi. As per the terms and conditions of service, petitioners were entitled to get salary in the full pay scale during running period of sugar factory while during the period of shut down they were entitled for half salary. On 01.10.2000 respondent-1 introduced scheme of VRS and circulated cyclostyle form to the employees to exercise their option. All the petitioners submitted applications opting VRS. However, respondents did not pay salary for crushing season 1981-82 and Retaining Period Allowance from February 1999 to 20.11.2000 as also the Provident Fund amount accrued to petitioners. Details of dues of petitioners are given in para-5 of writ petition as under: “Petitioner No.1, Hem Nath (i). The salary for the month of April, May and June of crussing season 198182 @ Rs. 592/-P.M. including Bonus of One Year plus interest @18% have not been paid, which comes out to about...Rs. 30,000/-. (ii) The retaining period allowance from Feb.1999 to 20.11.2000 has not been paid by the opposite party No.1 & 2, which come out as per calculation as 4776.50 x 22= Rs. 1,05,083 and it comes to 50% 1,05,083/2 Approx.= Rs. 592/-P.M. including Bonus of One Year plus interest @18% have not been paid, which comes out to about...Rs. 30,000/-. (ii) The retaining period allowance from Feb.1999 to 20.11.2000 has not been paid by the opposite party No.1 & 2, which come out as per calculation as 4776.50 x 22= Rs. 1,05,083 and it comes to 50% 1,05,083/2 Approx.= Rs. 52,541.00 (iii) Provident Fund from the year 1972 to 20.11.2000 has not been paid which comes out according to the calculation Rs.1,85,000/-against which Rs.60,000/-was taken as a loan and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get remaining balance amount of Provident Fund with interest 18% including compd. Interest. Petitioner No.2, Ramshanker Gupta Appointed-23.03.1976, VRS-08.12.2000 (i) Retaining allowance February 1999 to 08.12.2000 @ Rs.4512.50 p.m. 4513.50X 23 = Rs.1,03,810/-and its 30% which comes to approx. Rs.31,143.15 and interest thereon @ 18% p.a. Compound interest. (ii) Salary for Crushing Season 1981-82 @ Rs.600/- p.m. Bonus 1981-82 185% interest on Rs.2400/- uptill date, comes to approx. including compound interest (iii) Provident Fund amount Rs.1,40,000/-vide Account No.UP/176/580-B Fund Commissioner, Lucknow. Rs.1,800.00/- Rs.600.00/- -------------- Rs.2,400.00/-18% Rs.25,000.00/- Rs.27,400/- Approximate Petitioner No.6, Subedar, Appointed on 11.01.1979, V.R.S. On 07.11.2000 (i) Retaining allowance/salary 22 months @ 4428.50 p.m. 4428.50 X 22 = 97427/- and its 30% comes to Rs.32,475/- approx. Plus Interest and Compound Interest @ 18% p.a. (ii) 3 months salary for Crushing Season 1981-82 @ 600/- p.m. Bonus for 1981-82 Plus interest and compound interest @ 18% p.a. (iii) Arrears of provident fund of Rs.1,40,000/- Rs.32,475/- ] Rs.1800.00 Rs.600.00 ------------- Rs.2400.00 Rs.25,000.00 (approx.) Petitioner No.7, Raja Ram Appointed on 19.02.1971, V.R.S. On 20.11.2000 (i) Retaining allowance/salary of 22 months @ 4443.50 p.m. 4443.50 X 22 = Rs.97,757/-& its 30% comes to Rs.32,552.00 Plus interest and compound interest @ 18% p.a. (ii) 3 months salary for Crushing Season 1981-82 @ 600/- p.m. Bonus for 1981-82 Interest & Compound interest @ 18% p.a. on Rs.2400/- (iii) Arrears of provident fund of Rs.1,50,000/- Approx. Rs.32,552.00 Rs.1800.00 Rs.600.00 Rs.25000.00 Petitioner No.8, Suresh Chandra Pandey Appointed on 04.12.1968, V.R.S. On 02.12.2000 (i) Retaining allowance/salary of 22 months @4916.50 4916.50 X 22 = Rs.1,08,163/-& its 50% 1,08,163/2 = Rs.54081/-Approx. Plus interest and compound interest @ 18% p.a. (ii) 3 months salary for Crushing Season 1981-82 @600/- p.m. Bonus for one year 1981-82 Plus interest and compound interest @ 18% approx. Plus interest and compound interest @ 18% p.a. (ii) 3 months salary for Crushing Season 1981-82 @600/- p.m. Bonus for one year 1981-82 Plus interest and compound interest @ 18% approx. (iii) Arrears of Provident Fund Rs.1800/- Rs.600/- ------------ Rs.2400/- Rs.25000/- Rs.1,90,000/- Petitioner No.9, Natthu Singh Appointed on 11.11.1970, V.R.S. On 12.12.2000 (i) Retaining allowance/ salary for 22 months @ 4881.50 p.m. 4881.50 X 22 = Rs.1,07,393/- and its 50% comes to Rs.53,696.50/- Plus interest and compound interest @18% p.a. (ii) 3 months salary for Crushing Season 1981-82 @600/- p.m. Bonus for one year 1981-82 Plus interest and compound interest @18% p.a. (iii) Arrears of Provident Fund of Rs.2,00,000/- Approximately Rs.53,696.50/- Rs.1800.00/- Rs.600.00/- Rs.2400.00/- Petitioner No.10, Ram Roop Singh Appointed on 02.04.1987, V.R.S. On 10.12.2000 (i) Retaining allowance/ salary for 22 months @ 4631.50 p.m. @ 4631.50 X 22 = Rs.1,01,893/- and its 50% comes to Rs.50,946.50 Plus interest and Compound interest @ 18% p.a. (ii) 3 months salary for Crushing Season 1981-82 @ 600/- p.m. Bonus for one year 1981-82 Plus interest and compound interest @ 18% p.a. (iii) Arrears of Provident Fund of Rs.90,000/- Rs.50,946.50 Rs.1800.00 Rs.600.00 Petitioner No.11, Jai Kumar Singh Appointed on 22.06.1987, V.R.S. On 15.12.2000 (i) Retaining allowance/ salary for 22 months @ 4631.50 p.m. @ 4631.50 X 22 = Rs.1,01,893/- and its 50% comes to Rs.50,946.50 Plus interest and Compound interest @ 18% p.a. (ii) 3 months salary for Crushing Season 1981-82 i.e. April, May and June @ 600/- p.m. Bonus for one year 1981-82 Plus interest and compound interest on Rs.2400 @ 18% p.a. (iii) Arrears of Provident Fund of Rs.95,000/- Rs.50,946.50 Rs.1800.00 Rs.600.00 Petitioner No.12, Savitri Devi Appointed on 01.12.1998, V.R.S. On 15.12.2000 (Appointed on 1.12.1997 in place of her husband under the Dying-in-harness) (i) Retaining allowance/ salary for 22 months @ 4203.50 p.m. @ 4203.50 X 22 = Rs.92,477/- and its 30% comes to Rs.30,825/- approximately Plus interest and Compound interest @ 18% p.a. (ii) 3 months salary for Crushing Season 1981-82 @ 600/- p.m. Bonus for one year 1981-82 Plus interest and compound interest @ 18% p.a. (iii) Arrears of Provident Fund of Rs.40,000/- Rs.30,825 Rs.1800.00 Rs.600.00 Petitioner No.13, Jagroop Lal Appointed on 08.12.1975, V.R.S. On 08.12.2000 (i) Retaining allowance/ salary for 22 months @ 4513.50 p.m. 4513.50 X 22 = Rs.99,297.00/- and its 30% comes to Rs.33,099/- (approx.) Plus interest and Compound interest @ 18% p.a. (ii) 3 months salary for Crushing Season 1981-82 @ 600/- p.m. Bonus for 1981-82 (one year) Plus interest and compound interest on Rs.2400/- @ 18% p.a. (iii) Arrears of Provident Fund of Rs.1,45,000/- Rs.33099.00 Rs.1800.00 Rs.600.00 Petitioner No.14, Mool Chand Appointed on 27.01.1978, V.R.S. On 02.12.2000 (i) Retaining allowance Rs.23,000/-, 1981-82 salary 3 months Rs.1800+600= 2400/-, Provident Fund Rs.1,10,000/-” 3. Respondents issued computation letters as per office memorandum dated 23.09.2000 circulating VRS and terminating petitioners w.e.f. 08.12.2000. Total amount due to petitioners was shown as under: 1. Petitioner-1, Hem Nath Rs. 1,42,264.70 2. Petitioner-2, Ram Shanker Gupta Rs. 1,17,737.78 3. Petitioner-3, Ram Narain Rs. 1,52,226.60 4. Petitioner-4, Smt. Meera Devi Rs. 3,5054.58 5. Petitioner-5, Ram Babu Rs. 1,23,065.74 6. Petitioner-6, Subedar Rs. 1,04,793.13 7. Petitioner-7, Raja Ram Rs. 1,34,649.51 8. Petitioner-8, Suresh Chhandra Pandey Rs. 62,601.56 9. Petitioner-9, Nathu Singh Rs. 1,49,903.58 10.Petitioner-10, Ram Roop Singh Rs. 66,805.35 11.Petitioner-11, Jai Kumar Singh Rs. 66,827.35 12.Petitioner-12, Smt. Savitri Devi Rs. 11,337.94 13.Petitioner-13, Jagroop Lal Rs. 1,17,120.20 14.Petitioner-14, Mool Chand Rs. 1,18,326.45 4. With respect to provident fund it was mentioned in aforesaid letters that balance amount under the head of provident fund shall be made available separately. However, entire dues have not been paid to petitioners despite demand and representations. Subsequently impugned letter dated 07.12.2001 has been issued stating that no retaining allowance was payable since Mill was closed in February 1999. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent it is said that vide Government Order dated 12.11.1999 of UPSSCL, Unit in question was closed for crushing season 1999-2000 on account of the fact that Unit had become sick. This order applied to six units including Hardoi Unit. VRS Forms submitted by petitioners were accepted and they were paid dues in accordance with scheme. Hardoi Unit was acquired by UPSSCL w.e.f. 28.10.1984 under U.P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act 1971”), hence dues payable from the date of acquisition only are the liability of respondents UPSSCL and not for earlier period. Petitioners' erstwhile employer was M/s. Laxmi Sugar and Oil Mills, Hardoi and petitioners have remedy to claim the same from erstwhile employer/owner. Petitioners are not entitled for any retaining allowance w.e.f. February 1999 as Unit was already closed. 6. By means of an Application No. 9713 of 2012 it was brought on record that by means of Slump Sale Agreement dated 22.01.2011, Hardoi Unit has been sold to M/s. Agile Sugar Pvt. Limited. 7. During pendency of writ petition an order was passed on 12.10.2012 directing Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as “RPFC”) to release entire amount of Provident Fund to petitioners within one month. 7. During pendency of writ petition an order was passed on 12.10.2012 directing Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as “RPFC”) to release entire amount of Provident Fund to petitioners within one month. In furtherance thereof respondent-3 has filed a short reply and in para-2 thereof it has said as under: “2. That from perusal of the entire pleading and main prayer of the writ petition in which no claim has been made out against the opp. party no. 3. However, so far as the Provident fund dues are concerned in regard to the petitioners as mentioned in para 5 of the writ petition, the status are being given herein under on the basis of record: (i) That the petitioner no. 1 Sri Hem Nath bearing P.F. A/c No. UP/176/685 has been made out earlier on 20.06.2001 amounting to Rs. 48,182/-and Rs. 76314/-on 12.01.2007. (ii) That the P.F. A/c No. UP/176/580-B of petitioner no. 2 i.e. Sri Ram Sanker Gupta is not correct as mentioned in the writ petition. (iii) That so far as the petitioner no. 3 Sri Ram Narayan bearing P.F. A/c No. UP/176/532 A is concerned, the Claim Form-19 is not yet received in the office of the opp. party no. 3 for which vide office letter No. 45786 dated 11.10.2007, the petitioner was called for but the same remained in vain. (iv) That the P.F. A/c No. UP/176/825 of petitioner no. 4, i.e. Smt. Meera Devi is not orrect as per office record. (v) That the petitioner no. 5, Sri Ram Babu bearing P.F. A/c No. UP/176/728 has been made out earlier on 24.01.2003 amounting to Rs. 72620/-. (vi) That the petitioner no. 6 Sri Subedar bearing P.F. A/c No. UP/176/803 has been made out earlier on 08.02.2003 amounting to Rs. 71494/-. (vii) That the petitioner no. 7 Sri Suresh Chandra Pandey bearing P.F. A/c No. UP/176/1432 has been made out earlier on 13.02.2003 amounting to Rs. 1,31,679/-and on 23.12.2005 amounting to Rs. 10,087/-. (viii) That the petitioner no. 8 Sri Natthu Singh bearing P.F. A/c No. UP/176/1092 has been made out earlier on 24.09.2003 amounting to Rs. 1,25,544/-. (ix) That the petitioner no. 9 Sri Roop Singh bearing P.F. A/c No. UP/176/1188 has been made out earlier on 12.01.2003 amounting to Rs. 89,947/-. (x) That the petitioner no. 10,087/-. (viii) That the petitioner no. 8 Sri Natthu Singh bearing P.F. A/c No. UP/176/1092 has been made out earlier on 24.09.2003 amounting to Rs. 1,25,544/-. (ix) That the petitioner no. 9 Sri Roop Singh bearing P.F. A/c No. UP/176/1188 has been made out earlier on 12.01.2003 amounting to Rs. 89,947/-. (x) That the petitioner no. 10 Sri Jai Karan Singh bearing P.F. A/c No. UP/176/81 is not correct as per office record. (xi) That the petitioner no. 11 Sri Savitri Devi w/o late Daya Shanker bearing P.F. A/c No. UP/176/211 has been made out earlier on 23.04.1999 amounting to Rs. 1,12,063/-, wherein 60% Rs. 25,990/-is included. (xii) That the petitioner no. 12 Sri Raja Ram bearing P.F. A/c No. UP/176/1474 has been made on 14.02.2003 amounting to Rs. 70,781/-. (xiii) That the petitioner no. 13 Sri Jagroop bearing P.F. A/c No. UP/176/763 has been made on 24.01.2003 amounting to Rs. 1,30,154/-. (xiv) That the petitioner no. 14 Sri Mool Chandra bearing P.F. A/c No. UP/176/806 has been on 15.06.2001 amounting to Rs. 30,894/-and on 26.09.2005 amounting to Rs. 62,041/-. As such the P.F. Dues have been made to the petitioners from the office of the opposite party no. 3 as per statutory E.P.F. deposits made by the employer i.e. opposite parties no. 1 and 2 and returns i.e. F-3A/F-6A submitted by the opposite party no. 1 and 2.” 8. Thus as per Respondent-3, except Petitioners-2 and 10, all other petitioners have been paid due amount of Provident Fund. 9. I have heard Sri S.C. Gupta, Advocate for petitioners, Sri P.K. Sinha, Advocate for Respondents-1 and 2 and Sri R.K. Verma, Advocate for Respondent-3. Learned counsel for respondents contended that whatever amount due to petitioners has already been paid while petitioners claim is that the dues of the period up to appointed date under Act, 1971 have not been paid. The second dispute relates to payment of retaining allowance. 10. Thus the question raised in this writ petition is, “whether liability of dues of petitioners employees of erstwhile employer i.e. before taking over of Hardoi Mill by UPSSCL w.e.f. 28.10.1984, would be borne by UPSSCL and/or Respondent-3 or petitioners must set up their claim from the erstwhile Owner/Employer. 11. Admittedly, Respondent-1, Uttar Pradesh State Sugar Corporation Limited i.e., UPSSCL is a Government Company incorporated under Section 617 of Companies Act, 1956. 12. 11. Admittedly, Respondent-1, Uttar Pradesh State Sugar Corporation Limited i.e., UPSSCL is a Government Company incorporated under Section 617 of Companies Act, 1956. 12. Act, 1971 was enacted for acquisition and transfer of certain sugar undertakings and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. M/s Laxmi Sugar and Oil Mills, Hardoi, an undertaking specified in Schedule II of Act, 1971 stood transferred and vested in UPSSCL with effect from 28.10.1984. 13. The expression ''appointed day' in relation to the undertakings specified in Schedule II of the Act means 28.10.1984. In Section 2(h) of Act, 1971 the expression ''scheduled undertaking' has been defined to mean an undertaking engaged in the manufacture or production of sugar by means of vacuum pans and with the aid of mechanical power in a factory specified in the Schedule to Act, 1971. The assets included in the expression ''scheduled undertaking' were specified in said sub-section. 14. Section 3 of Act, 1971 deals with vesting of “Scheduled Undertakings” in UPSSCL under the provisions of Act, 1971. Section 3 being relevant is extracted below: "3. On the appointed day, every schedule undertaking shall, by virtue of this Act, 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 and other encumbrance or lien trust or similar obligation (excepting any lien or other obligation in respect of any advance on the security of any sugar stock or other stock-in-trade) attaching to the undertaking : Provided that any such debt, mortgage, charge or other encumbrance or lien, trust or similar obligation shall attach to the compensation referred to in Section 7, in accordance with the provisions of that section, in substitution for the undertaking : Provided further that a debt, mortgage, charge or other encumbrance or lien, trust or similar obligation created after the scheduled undertaking or any property or asset comprised therein had been attached or a receiver appointed over it, in any proceedings for realization of any tax or cess or other dues recoverable as arrears of revenue shall be void as against all claims for dues recoverable as arrears of revenue." (emphasis added) 15. Section 7 of Act, 1971 deals with determination and mode of payment of compensation by State Government. Section 7 of Act, 1971 deals with determination and mode of payment of compensation by State Government. Sub-section (6) of Section 7 of Act, 1971 enumerates the amounts to be deducted from the compensation payable to Erstwhile Owners of Scheduled Undertakings. Section 7(6)(c) and 7(6)(d) being relevant are reproduced below: "7(6) The State Government shall provisionally deduct from the compensation referred to in sub-sections (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) the following amounts namely:- ….. (c) Any amount of wages, retaining allowances, bonus, provident fund or other payments due to persons employed as workmen (within the meaning of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947) in connection with the scheduled undertaking immediately before the appointed day. (d) Any amount due in respect of either the employer's contribution or the employee's contribution realised by the employer or any other dues recoverable from the employer under the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 or the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 in respect of persons employed in connection with the scheduled undertaking immediately before the appointed day that the employer may have failed to pay in accordance with the respective Acts." (emphasis added) 16. Section 8 of Act, 1971 deals with the claims to be satisfied out of compensation payable by State Government to Erstwhile Owners of Scheduled Undertakings. Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 8 being relevant are being extracted below: "8(4) -The Employees' Provident Fund Commissioner or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation may send to the prescribed authority a certificate in respect of either the employer's contribution or the employee's contribution realized by the employer or any other dues recoverable from the employer under the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952, or the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, as the case may be, in respect of any person who was employed in connection with the scheduled undertaking immediately before the appointed day, that the employer may have failed to pay in accordance with the respective Acts. 8(5) -Any person who was employed exclusively in connection with the scheduled undertaking immediately before the appointed day, whether he does or does not become an employee of the Corporation under section 16, or ceases to be in such employment, or any trade union of which such person was member, may prefer to the prescribed authority any claim relating to any salary, wages relating allowance, leave salary, bonus pension, provident fund, gratuity or other payment due to him, or the proportionate amount thereof, in respect of any service rendered by him in connection with the undertaking before the said day." 17. A conjoint reading of the provisions of Act, 1971 extracted above, show that with effect from appointed day i.e. 28.10.1984, Scheduled Undertakings, specified in Schedule II of Act, 1971 stood transferred and vested in UPSSCL free from any debt, charge or encumbrance and any such debt, charge or encumbrance stood attached to compensation payable to erstwhile owner of scheduled undertakings. It was for State Government to deduct from compensation payable to erstwhile Employer, the provident fund or any other dues recoverable under Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1952”), in respect of any person employed in connection with Scheduled Undertaking immediately before appointed day. In respect of dues under Act, 1952 recoverable from erstwhile Employer, it was further open to Employees' Provident Fund Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as “EPC Commissioner”) to stake a claim before Prescribed Authority appointed under Act, 1971. 18. The aforesaid provisions also shows that liability as on appointed date in respect of items mentioned for amounts referable to Sections 7 and 8 are to be adjusted or borne or settled between erstwhile Owner, UPSSCL and statutory authorities like EPF Commissioner or Director General or Regional Director General, Employees State Insurance Corporation etc. but so far as the employees who continued in service on appointed date and stood transferred to UPSSCL, all their claims of entire period have to be borne by UPSSCL and authorities under Labour Welfare Legislation, like, EPF Commissioner or Employees State Insurance Corporation. It is not open to UPSSCL to dispute the claim of an employee who was in service on appointed date and retired while working in UPSSCL, to suggest, that dues of the period prior to appointed date must be settled by employee with erstwhile Owner. It is not open to UPSSCL to dispute the claim of an employee who was in service on appointed date and retired while working in UPSSCL, to suggest, that dues of the period prior to appointed date must be settled by employee with erstwhile Owner. Such adjustment was permitted to be made from the compensation payable to erstwhile Owner and it was the responsibility of UPSSCL or authorities under Act, 1952 or Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1948”) but if they had not adjusted the amount from compensation payable to erstwhile Owner, it is their fault, and, they cannot dismiss claim of employee who is allowed to retire on and after appointed date, i.e., while he/she was serving with UPSSCL. 19. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent-1, UPSSCL relied on the authority of this Court in M/s U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2011(131) FLR 521. Having gone through the aforesaid judgment I find that therein this Court with reference to Act, 1952 has not held that provident fund of workers of Ratna Sugar Mills Co., Ltd., Shahganj, Jaunpur, an undertaking specified in Schedule III of Act, 1971, of the period prior to the date of its vesting in Corporation, cannot be recovered from UPSSCL. The relevant extract of judgment relied on is reproduced below: - "In my opinion, the argument of learned counsel for the respondent E.P.F. Authorities is not tenable. Firstly, the word 'transfer' used in Section 17(B) of the E.P.F. Act cannot apply to compulsory acquisition. Secondly, rights of the EPF authorities are better protected by the U.P. Acquisition Act of 1971. E.P.F. Authorities could very well make a claim under Section 8(4) of the U.P. Acquisition Act of 1971. Accordingly, it is held that after acquisition EPF authorities cannot proceed against the petitioner for realization of E.P.F. dues if any." (emphasis added) 20. In the aforesaid judgment I do not find that the issue, whether dues payable to an employee, who is allowed voluntary retirement while serving under UPSSCL, whether in respect of period prior to appointed date, will have to be claimed by such employee from erstwhile Owner or from employer with whom his services stood dispensed with, was not an issue. Therefore, it is not an authority on the point which has been raised before this Court. Therefore, it is not an authority on the point which has been raised before this Court. Therein it appears that the authorities under Act, 1952 did not stake any claim against compensation payable to erstwhile Owner as permitted in Section 8(4) and (5) of Act, 1971 since they could have made their claim under Section 8(4) of Act, 1971 but having not done so, they could not have recovered the amount from UPSSCL. There is no law laid down in aforesaid judgment that an employee whose services stand terminated under Voluntary Retirement Scheme or otherwise by UPSSCL will have to make a claim against erstwhile Owner in respect of any amount whatsoever, whether in respect of period before appointed date or any other amount. The employees who stood transferred to UPSSCL under Act, 1971, after such transfer, will settle their claim irrespective of any period, from UPSSCL or the authorities under Act, 1952 and they cannot be made to run from one authority to another or to raise any claim from erstwhile Owner. The intention of legislature is very clear that employees shall not be allowed to suffer on account of a situation created due to compulsory acquisition of Schedule Industries under Act, 1971 but all the dues of employees who stood transferred to UPSSCL, on appointed date, would be borne by UPSSCL as also the various authorities under various labour laws, as the case may be, and, it is not for the employee to go to any litigation against erstwhile Employer. 21. Another authority relied on behalf of Respondent-1 is Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh v. National Textile Corporation Ltd. and others, (1996) 1 SCC 313 . Therein dispute relates to a Mill transferred to National Textile Corporation under the provisions of Textile Undertakings (Take Over of Management) Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1983”). On the date of taking over of management, the employee was not in service and dispute was regarding gratuity amount of such an employee. Supreme Court, while dealing with Section 3 of Act, 1983 (provisions of which are pari materia with those of the Act, 1971), has held that liability to pay gratuity which became payable to a former employee of Mill, by the Mill prior to its vesting in National Textile Corporation, was that of Transferor Mill and not of National Textile Corporation. Supreme Court, while dealing with Section 3 of Act, 1983 (provisions of which are pari materia with those of the Act, 1971), has held that liability to pay gratuity which became payable to a former employee of Mill, by the Mill prior to its vesting in National Textile Corporation, was that of Transferor Mill and not of National Textile Corporation. Relevant extract of paragraph 11 of said judgment is being quoted below:- "The provisions of the Ordinance No. 6 of 1995 also show that the liabilities for the period prior to the take over of the management are to be discharged from the amount payable to the owner of the textile undertaking for the acquisition of the undertaking and not by the NTC. It is, therefore, not possible to uphold the contention urged on behalf of the appellant that NTC is liable in respect of the gratuity amount payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act to Respondent No.2." (emphasis added) 22. In the above case, the employees were prior employees, i.e., one who retired/ Terminated before taking over by National Textile Corporation. The aforesaid judgment, therefore, also does not help respondents. In my view the outstanding dues of petitioners cannot be denied by respondents only on the ground that the same relates to prior prior to appointed date, under Act, 1971, and employees must claim such dues from erstwhile Employer. 23. There is one more authority of this Court which has been relied on behalf of Respondents. Relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (supra), this Court, in Writ Petition No.2018 (SS) 1993, UP State Sugar Corporation Limited v. Ram Prasad and others, decided on 25.05.2016 and other connected petitions, has held that liability for payment of gratuity to workmen of Nawabganj Sugar Mill Co. Ltd., Gonda, an undertaking specified in Schedule III of Act, 1971, who had retired prior to date of its vesting in Corporation, was not that of Corporation. Ltd., Gonda, an undertaking specified in Schedule III of Act, 1971, who had retired prior to date of its vesting in Corporation, was not that of Corporation. The relevant portion of judgment is reproduced as under : "In the case of Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (supra), it has been held by the Apex Court that the liability of payment of gratuity to its employees/workmen whose management has been taken over under Textile Undertakings Act, 1983 by NTC in respect of period prior to taking of undertaking would not be of NTC and NTC is not liable to pay the amount of gratuity payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act....." In the instant case, from the record it is evidently clear that the liability under Payment of Gratuity Act for payment of gratuity to the employees/workmen who had retired prior to the date of vesting of Nawabganj Sugar Mill Company Limited would not be of U.P. State Sugar Corporation Limited. Thus, the orders impugned are not sustainable in the eyes of law. They are accordingly set aside. The writ petitions are allowed." 24. The aforesaid judgment also related to an employee who had retired prior to date of vesting of Schedule Undertaking under Act, 1971 with UPSSCL, i.e., he was not employed on the appointed date hence he was not transferred to UPSSCL and thus this judgment also does not help respondents in any manner. 25. Now coming to question of retaining allowance, reliance is placed on Clause-K of Standing Orders governing Conditions of Employment of Workman in Vacuum Pan Sugar Factories of the State enforced vide notification dated 03.10.1958. Paras 1 to 4 thereof reads as under: “K. Special Conditions Governing Employment of Seasonal Workmen 1. A seasonal workman who has worked or, but for illness or any other unavoidable cause, would have worked under a factory during the whole of the second half of the last preceding season shall be employed by the factory in the current season and shall be entitled to get retaining allowance provided he joins the current season and works for at least one month. The payment of retaining allowance shall be made within two months of the date of the commencement of the season. The payment of retaining allowance shall be made within two months of the date of the commencement of the season. Explanation-Unauthorised absence during the second of the last preceding in season of a workman who has not been validly dismissed under these Standing Orders and of a workman who has been reemployed by the management in the current season, shall be deemed to have been condoned by the management. 2. Every seasonal workman who worked during the last season shall be put up on his old job whether he was in the 'R' shift or in any of the usual shifts. However, if the exigencies of work so require, the management may transfer a workman from one job to another or from one shift to another including the 'R' shift, so however, that the number of workmen so transferred does not exceed five per cent of total number of the employers of the factory and that the wages and status of such workman is not affected in any way. 3. A seasonal workman, who is a retainer shall be liable to be called on duty at any time in the off season and if he does not report for duty within ten days, he shall lose his retaining allowance for the period for which he was called for duty. 4. Where owing to trade reasons or other reasons necessary for a bona fide Law Off, as given in Standing Order 'J' it becomes necessary for a factory so to do, it may discharge the seasonal workman before the close of the season with the previous permission of the state labour commissioner if he so directs Additional Labour Commissioner or Regional Additional/ Deputy Labour Commissioner of the area after paying such compensation to the discharged workman as may be determined by the authority granting the permission." 26. Applicability of aforesaid provision depends on certain incidents and facts in respect whereto I find no proper pleading in the writ petition. In absence of specific pleadings, disputed question of facts i.e. paybility of retaining allowance of workman which has been seriously disputed by Employer, cannot be decided in a writ petition. Applicability of aforesaid provision depends on certain incidents and facts in respect whereto I find no proper pleading in the writ petition. In absence of specific pleadings, disputed question of facts i.e. paybility of retaining allowance of workman which has been seriously disputed by Employer, cannot be decided in a writ petition. In this regard petitioners have statutory alternative remedy to settle their dispute by raising an industrial dispute under U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the “U.P. Act 1947”) or Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1936”). 27. In view of above writ petition is partly allowed. Respondents are directed to pay the outstanding dues of petitioners in respect of period when they claimed that erstwhile employer, i.e., appointed date under Act, 1971, i.e., 28.10.1984. This direction also include Respondent-3, who has to make such payment towards provident fund to petitioners, if not already paid. For entire amount which will be paid by respondents under this judgment, petitioners shall also be entitled to interest at the simple interest of 6% per annum, which shall be computed for the period from the date of filing of this writ petition, i.e., 11.02.2002 till payment is made. In respect of retaining allowance petitioners may avail their statutory alternative remedy under U.P. Act, 1947 or Act, 1936. 28. There shall be no order as to costs.