Page 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3937-3938 OF 2011

Warsaliganj Sahkari Chini Mill Mazdoor Union … Appellant (s)   

Versus

State of Bihar and others … Respondent (s)

WITH  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4201 OF 2011

South Bihar Sugar Mills Workers Union and others … Appellant  (s)   

Versus

State of Bihar and others … Respondent (s)

J U D G M E N T  

KURIAN, J.:   

1. Whether  seasonal  workers  of  the  sugar  factories  

stopped  crushing  years  back  would  be  entitled  to  retaining  

allowance, was the main issue agitated by the appellant-union  

before the High Court. It was held by the High Court that as  

there  was  no  crushing  in  the  sugar  factories,  the  seasonal  

1

NON-REPORTABLE

Page 2

workers will not be entitled to retaining allowance. Aggrieved,  

the union has come up in appeal.  

2. At the time of hearing of the appeals, taking note of the  

intervening  development  of  an  Exit  Settlement  scheme/plan,  

learned Senior Counsel Shri Amarendra Sharan submits that at  

least for the purpose of working out the benefits under the said  

plan, the retaining allowance may be directed to be taken into  

account.

3. Heard  the  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  

respondents also.

4. It is seen from the additional affidavit dated 10.02.2015  

that the seasonal workers attached to the sugar factories which  

have been closed down long back are actually made to retire  

only  on  attaining  the  age  of  60  years.  In  one  of  the  

communications, it is stated that the company did not require  

their services after the age of 60 years. Thus, in the case of  

those seasonal workers who had been working in those sugar  

factories  referred  to  in  the  appeals,  though  not  actually  

provided with work after the closure of the factories, they have  

been  retained  till  they  attained  the  age  of  superannuation,  

2

Page 3

apparently  for  some  pensionery  benefits  which  they  are  

otherwise eligible. That being the position, it is only just, fair  

and reasonable that at least, notionally, the retaining allowance  

which would have been otherwise payable to  them, had the  

factories been functional, be taken into account for the purpose  

of calculating their pensionery benefits or the benefits under  

the Exit Settlement scheme/plan.  

5. Ordered accordingly. In order to avoid any confusion, it  

is  clarified  that  the  seasonal  workers  attached  to  the  sugar  

factories referred to in the appeals will not be entitled to any  

retaining allowance:  however,  the retaining allowance,  which  

would  have  been otherwise  payable,  will  only  be  taken into  

account for the purpose of calculating the benefits due to them  

in  terms  of  the  Exit  Settlement  scheme/plan  or  pensionery  

benefits.  Needful  shall  be done by the respondents  within  a  

period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this  

order.

6. Appeals  are disposed of  as above.  There shall  be no  

order as to costs.                                        

..…….…..…………J.                     (M.Y. EQBAL)

3

Page 4

..……………………J.                     (KURIAN  

JOSEPH)

New Delhi; February 16, 2015.  

4