1. P. Ramu v. I The Chairman and Managing Director

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondent No.1 in not regularizing the Petitioners services and treating the Petitioners as causal 7 workers from 23.06.2015 onwards is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 and 16 of constitution of lndia, consequenily direct the Respondent No.1 to regularize the services of the Petitioners by treating their services as continuity of services from 28.09.'1989 and by considering the consequential benefits in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.'l to regularize the services of the Petitioners pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI C.VTDYADHAR BHATT Gounsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3 & 6: SRI D.RAVISHANKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI cADl PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERIAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER I 1 wp_9812_2019 N8X, J THE HON,BLE SRI JUSTI CE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA wRl T PETITION No.9812 ol 2OL9 ORDER: Succinctly stated, the petitioners, contending that they were employed by the respondent-ECIL in the year 1989 and they worked for 240 days in 12 continuous calendar months and were illegally retrenched in 1990, approached this Court by filing WP No.10267 of 1990 seeking regularization of their services. The writ petition was disposed of by directing the petitioners to approach lndustrialTribunal. The petitioners approached the lndustrialTribunal by filing lD Nos.134 and L35 of 1991, and the Tribunal vide interim orders in lA Nos'355 and 356 of 1991, directed reinstatement of the petitioners, however, passed Nil Award' Challenging the interim order of reinstatement, the respondent-EC|L filed wP Nos.4393 and 4394 ot 1992. This court though initially granted interim suspension of reinstatement, however, ultimately disposed of the writ petitions by directing the Tribunal to dispose of the lndustrial Disputes within six months, apart from directing the respondent to continue the petitioners in service in the meanwhile'

2. Thereafter, the Tribunal, renumbering the Old lDs as lD Nos'28 and 29 of 2OOO, respectively, and after due enquiry passed Common Award dated 24.03.2003 by answering Point No'2 framed therein, relating to the "employer" and "duration of service put in by the petitioners", holding that the petitioners were engaged by respondent- ECIL and that the petitioners worked for more than 250 days in the respondent-EC|L from 28.09.1989 to 15.06.1990' However, the lDs were 2 wp_9812_2019 NBK,,I dismissed. Challenging the dismissal of the lD Nos.28 and 29 of 2000, the petitioners filed WP No.14352 of 2003 before this Court.

3. This Court disposed of WP No.14352 of 2003 by order dated 21.11,.20L3, by directing reinstatement of the petitioners with continuity of service and attendant benefits. Challenging the same, the respondent-ECIL filed an Appeal before this Court, in Writ Appeal No.550 of 2O1,4. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, allowed the Appeal by Judgment dated 02.05.2014, however, on a Review Petition filed by the petitioners, the Hon' ble Division Bench by Judgment dated 24.1'1.2014 reviewed the earlier judgment dated 02.06.2074, and dismissed the Writ Appeal, with an observation that the grievance should have been of the petitioners as regards denial of backwages.

4. Challenging the Judgment dated 24.tt.2014 in W.A.No.550 of 2014, the respondent-ECIL approached the Hon' ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.7036 of 2015, however, the same was dismissed by Order dated 27.O3.2015, thereby the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.14352 of 2003 dated

21.1.1..2013 atta i ned fi na I ity.

5. The petitioners were thereafter reinstated on 02.05.2015, as per the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-EClL. lt is their grievance that the respondent-EC|L instead of regularizing their services with effect from 28.09.1989 with continuity of service and attendant benefits, they were reinstated on 23.06.201"5 and being treated as casual workers. 3 wp_9812,2019 NBK, J

6. Heard Mr. C. Vidyadhar Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. D. Ravishankar, learned counsel for respondent-EClL. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that this Court

7. in WP No.14352 ol 2OO3 directed reinstatement of the petitioners, with continuity of service and attendant benefits, however, the respondent reinstated the petitioners with effect from 2015 without any continuity of service and has been treating them as casual workers. Learned counsel, while contending that the respondent has misconstrued the order in WP No.14352 of 2003, submits that this Court directed reinstatement with continuity of service and attendant benefits, and the said direction has not been implemented by the respondent, thereby the very intent of the order is getting defeated. Learned counsel therefore prays that the respondent may be directed to regularize the services of petitioners from 1989.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent, basing on the counter affidavit filed by the Deputy General Manager of the respondent-EClL, would essentially submit that the petitioners were never engaged as casual workers between September 1989 to April 1990, and that the petitioners were engaged by a Contractor Mr.5. Varma and that the petitioners were engaged from 02.05.1990 to 15.06.1990 in connection with a specific work of installation of LP Antenna of Defence Research and Development Laborary. Learned counsel would further submit that the Tribunal has not observed that the petitioners had put in more than 240 days of service in 12 calendar months and that their services cannot be considered as employees of Corporation, and further they cannot 4 wp_9812 2019 NAK, ,, seek appointment as Skilled or Tradesman Grade post, which requires following of recruitment rules, and the same was informed to the petitioners through letter dated 23.06.20L5.

9. Having considered the respective submissions, and perusing the record, at the outset, it may be noted that this Court, while disposing of the WP No.14352 of 2003 by Order dated 21.11.2013 observed as fo llows: "14. The question consequently is whether the termination of the petitioners is bad or otherwise. The learned Chairman of the lndustrial Tribunal-ll held that each of the petitioners put more than 240 days of service in a 12 calendar months; consequently, the petitioners shall be considered to be employees of the Corporation. The lndustrial Tribunal-ll considered that the termination of the petitioners was in accordance with the statutory rules and that the orders cannot therefore be interfered with. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the retrenchment policy of the respondent-Corporation cannot be considered to be statutory rules as it does not fall under the rule making power of any Act. He submitted that where there is no rule empowering the respondent to remove the petitioners without following Sec.2S-F of the lndustrial Disputes Act, the petitioners are entitled to reinstatement as their termination was not in accordance with any statutory rules. Admittedly, no notice was issued before the petitioners were terminated. The lndustrial Tribunal held that the petitioners put in more than 240 days of service in a period of 12 calendar months. The respondent failed to show that the services of the petitioners were engaged for a specific purpose and that the purpose for which the petitioners were I I I 5 wp_9812-2019 NBK,,I engaged outlived itself. l, therefore consider that it is a fit case to order reinstatement of the petitioners by sefting aside the orders of the lndustrial TribunalJl'

15. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of ordering reinstatement of the petitioners together with continuity of service and attendant benefits' Where the petitioners have failed to plead and show that they were not gainfully employed during the period they were out of employment' the reinstatement together with continuity of service and attendant benefits shall be without any backwages during the period the petitioners were out of employment' The respondent-Corporation is directed to reinstate the petitioners within six weeks from the date of receipt of a. copy of this order. Miscellaneous petitions' if any' pending in this writ petition shall stand closed' No costs'"

10. lt may be noted that the Order dated 21'Ll'2O13 in WP No'14352 of 2003 is explicit and unambiguous with regard to the finding of the Tribunal in lD Nos.28 and 29 of 2000 that the petitioners are employed by respondent-ECIL and further the petitioners served in the respondent-EClL for more than 240 days in a period of 12 calendar months from 28.09.1989 to 15'06'1990' Further' this Court directed the respondent-EClL to reinstate the petitioners with continuity of service and attendant benefits, with a further direction that wherever the petitioners fail to show that they were not gainfully employed while out of employment with respondent-EClL, they shall not be eligible for back wages. lt is to be noted that when the removal of petitioners from servicewassetasidebythisCourt,anddirectedtheirreinstatementwith I I l wp-9a72 _20L9 NAK, J continuity of service and attendant benefits, it is deemed that they were in continuous service, as if no retrenchment has happened, so to speak. Therefore, reinstating the petitioners with effect from 02.05.2015 (or

23.06.2015 as per the writ affidavit) is flawed and misconceived implementation of the orders passed by this Court.

11. ln view of the dismissal of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.7035 of 2015 filed by the respondent-EC|L before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, whereby the Order dated 21.11.2013 in WP No.14352 of 2003 having attained finality, this Court does not deem it expedient to re-adjudicate a decided issue.

12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, directing the respondent- ECIL to regularize the services of petitioners with effect from 28.09.1989 onwards, with continuity of service and attendant benefits. However, as the petitioners are stated to be rendering services upon reinstatement from 02.05.2015, they shall be entitled to only notional benefits for the period they were out of employment of respondent-Ecll. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi has made Absolute as above witness The Hon'ble SRI ALOK ARADHE, The Chief Justice on this Thursday, the Ninth Day ofJanuary, Two Thousand and Twenty Five. \ //TRUE COPY// SD/.T. TIRUMALA PEVI ASSISTANT REGIStrRAR ./ \,J/ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman and Managing Director, Electronics Corporation lndia Ltd., ECIL, Hyderabad - 62.

2. The Director Personal Group Electronics Corporation lndia Ltd, ECIL, Hyderabad - 62.

3. The Head Personal Group Electronics Corporation lndia Ltd, ECIL, Hyderabad - 62.

4. The Regional Labour Commissioner Govt, Of lndia ATI Campus, Shivam Road, Hyderabad. td't I \

5. The Managing Director, Electronics Corporation of lndia Ltd., Hyderabad 6. One CC to SRt C.V|DYADHAR BHATI-, Advocate tOpUCl 7. One CC to SRt D.RAVTSHANKAR RAO, Advocate IOPUC] 8. One CC to SRt cADt PRAVEI:N KU-|VAR, DEpUry SOL|C|TOR GENERTAL oF tND,A, High Court for the State ot i"lrig"*ii nvnErroro-fo'pirEi-'.^.

9. Two CD Copies BSR BS I HIGH COURT DATED: 0910112025 CC TODAY , I ORDER WP.No.9812 ot 2019 J (,1 ,2, a \ ({ lHe S l4 1E ffE ZW D^ --;-:.:--- o(' p \\ I ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS \\ 1T