Continued Contractual Service Despite Sanctioned Posts Is Unfair Labour Practice: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of ECG Technicians After 15 Years

“Though The Initial Appointment Was Irregular, It Was Not Illegal”: In a latest Judgement Orissa High Court delivered a crucial judgment in Ganesh Chandra Bhuyan & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Ors., allowing Writ Appeal No. 3071 of 2023 and dismissing the State’s counter appeal (W.A. No. 296 of 2025), directing the regularization of two contractual ECG Technicians at SCB Medical College and Hospital. The Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra and Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad held that continued engagement of the appellants on a contractual basis for over 15 years, despite sanctioned posts and prior selection, amounted to “unfair labour practice” as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Court Condemns State's Inaction: “Appellants Were Selected Through A Valid Process And Have Rendered Unblemished Service Since 2011”

The appellants were initially selected through a proper selection process conducted pursuant to an advertisement dated 17.11.2010. While four out of seven selected candidates were appointed to the Trauma Care Centre, the remaining—including the two appellants—were engaged as ECG Technicians in the Cardiology Department on a contractual basis in 2011.

Despite continuous service for over a decade, and multiple recommendations by the SCBMCH authorities for their absorption, the State Government issued an open advertisement in 2015 for the same posts, bypassing the appellants. The Court noted with disapproval that this action was contrary to the earlier direction of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 2367(C)/2014, which had required the State to consider the appellants’ representation for absorption following the creation of four posts in 2014.

Justice Mishra, writing for the Bench, observed: “Though the initial appointments of the appellants... were irregular, it cannot be said to be illegal. That apart, on repeated recommendations of the Authority concerned, the State Government created four posts of E.C.G. Technician.”

Hospital Is An “Industry”; Technicians Are “Workmen”; Denial Of Regularization Violates Industrial Disputes Act

Invoking the binding precedent of the Constitution Bench in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa [(1978) 2 SCC 213], the Court reaffirmed that a government hospital such as SCBMCH qualifies as an “industry” under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Consequently, the appellants—engaged in technical and perennial work—fall within the definition of “workmen” under Section 2(s) of the Act.

The Court further ruled that the continued contractual status of the appellants, despite sanctioned posts and satisfactory service, amounted to a prohibited “unfair labour practice” under Item 10 of the Fifth Schedule read with Sections 2(ra), 25T and 25U of the Industrial Disputes Act.

“Such conduct of the State Authorities, styling the Appellants as contractual employees for years together and debarring them from becoming permanent on such plea, amounts to ‘unfair labour practice’.”

Judicial Review Under Article 226 Not Limited To Mere Representation: Court Issues Writ Of Mandamus

The Court found fault with the approach of the Single Judge, who had, despite acknowledging the facts and recommendations in favour of the appellants, relegated the matter to mere consideration of pending representations. The Division Bench held that once the facts and rights were established, the High Court was duty-bound under Article 226 to grant effective relief, not merely procedural deferral.

“We are of the view that the action of the authority concerned to make the Advertisement dated 17.12.2015... was uncalled for, and the impugned Judgment... needs modification.”

Accordingly, the High Court modified the Single Judge’s ruling and issued a writ of mandamus, directing the State to absorb the appellants against the four sanctioned posts of ECG Technician and to grant them all consequential service benefits.

Secretary v. Umadevi Distinguished: Irregular, Not Illegal, Appointments Based On Selection Process And Administrative Recommendations

The State had relied on the celebrated decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1] to argue that the appellants, being contractual employees paid from user fees, had no right to regularization. The Court rejected this contention by holding that the appointments, though initially irregular due to the absence of sanctioned posts, were not illegal, since they were based on a valid selection process.

“Their nature of job being permanent and perennial... Despite creation of posts... the Petitioners are working for the last 15 years... being styled as contractual employees, thereby debarring them from becoming permanent.”

The Court further noted that in light of judgments such as Jaggo v. Union of India [AIR 2025 SC 296], Sripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad [2025 SCC OnLine SC 211], and Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. [C.A. No. 8558/2018, decided on 19.08.2025], the appellants were entitled to regularization given the sustained recommendations, satisfactory performance, and sanctioned posts in their favour.

In sum, the Orissa High Court has reaffirmed that the protection against unfair labour practices under the Industrial Disputes Act extends even to government medical institutions, and that courts, in exercise of judicial review, must ensure substantive justice rather than procedural deflection when employees are unfairly denied their rightful status. The decision offers significant relief to contractual employees who have served for long periods under the shadow of impermanence despite clear administrative sanction.

Date of Decision: 15th December, 2025