ECIL Directed to Regularise Service from 1989 | HC

Case Details: P. Ramu vs. Chairman and Managing Director [2025] 181 taxmann.com 204 (HC - TELANGANA)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.
• R Dheeraj Singh, Adv. for the Petitioner.
• K Srinivasa Murthy, SC for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the petitioners were engaged by respondent-ECIL and worked for more than 240 days in a period of 12 calendar months from 28-9-1989 to 15-6-1990. The petitioners were illegally retrenched in 1990. The petitioners approached the Court by filing a writ petition seeking the regularisation of their services. The Writ petition was disposed of by directing the petitioners to approach the Industrial Tribunal.

The Tribunal directed reinstatement of the petitioners; however, it passed a Nil Award. On a writ filed by the respondent-ECIL against the interim order of reinstatement, this Court ultimately disposed of the writ petitions by directing the Tribunal to dispose of the Industrial Disputes within six months, apart from directing the respondent to continue the petitioners in service in the meanwhile.

The Tribunal recorded that the petitioners were engaged by ECIL and had worked for more than 250 days from 28.09.1989 to 15.06.1990. However, the Industrial Disputes were dismissed.

On a writ filed by the petitioners, the Court directed the reinstatement of the petitioners, with continuity of service and attendant benefits.
On appeal filed by the respondent-ECIL, the Division Bench allowed the Appeal by Judgment dated 2-6-2014, however, on a Review Petition filed by the petitioners, the Division Bench reviewed the earlier judgment and dismissed the Writ Appeal, with an observation that the grievance should have been of the petitioners as regards the denial of back wages.

High Court Held

The High Court held that when removal of petitioners from service was set aside by the Court, and directed their reinstatement with continuity of service and attendant benefits, it was deemed that they were in continuous service, as if no retrenchment had happened, so to speak.

Therefore, reinstating petitioners with effect from 2015 was a flawed and misconceived implementation of orders passed by the Court. Thus, the respondent-ECIL was to be directed to regularise the services of the petitioners with effect from 28-9-1989, with continuity of service and attendant benefits.

List of Cases Referred to

• K. Lakshminarayana v. Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. [W. P. No. 14352 of 2003, dated 21-11-2013] (para 2)
• Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. v. K. Laksminarayana [SLP to Appeal (C) No. 7036 of 2015, dated 27-3-2015] (para 4).