L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 28.7.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP No. 12761 of 1998. The writ petition in turn was filed by the appellants herein challenging the Award dated 11.2.1998 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal") in ID No. 42 of 1995.

2. The respondent Nos. 2 to 15 and 3 others were engaged as Casual Workers by the appellant-industry. Initially, they approached the Conciliation Officer with a request to arrange for regularization of their services. It is stated that even while the conciliation was in progress, the appellant, retrenched the respondents 2 to 14 (for short "the workmen") and on the request made by them the Government issued G.O. Rt. No. 1965, dated 24.8.1995 referring the dispute to the Labour Court viz., "Whether the management of Shriram Fuel Injection Industries, Balanagar, Hyderabad is justified in terminating the services of 17 casual workers, whose names are given in annexure, without considering their demand for regularization of their service?"

3. The workmen pleaded that many workers, who are on par with, or juniors to them, were regularized and even while they have been agitating for their regularization and their services were terminated. The appellant opposed the I.D. and pleaded that on account of its financial fragility a scheme was framed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short "the BIFR") under the Sick Industries (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA). On merits they stated that the retrenchment had to be resorted to on account of want of work and that the concept of regularization is unknown to the Industrial Disputes.

4. Through its Award dated 11.2.1998, the Labour Court (a) has set aside the order of retrenchment, (b) directed the reinstatement of the workmen with backwages and (c) directed that the appellant shall regularize the services of the workmen. WP No. 12761 of 1998 filed by the petitioner challenging the Award was dismissed. Hence the writ appeal.

5. Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the retrenchment had to be undertaken due to paucity of work and financial difficulties, and it is clearly evident from the very fact that a scheme was framed by the BIFR. He further submits that even where, an order of retrenchment is found to be not in accordance with law, a direction is given for reinstatement not as a matter of course, particularly when the workmen are engaged on casual basis and that the Labour Court committed in directing the reinstatement to the service and granting of relief of backwages, in the instant case. Learned Counsel further submits that the regularization of services is a phenomenon that exists in the service of the Government and its organizations and that it is totally unknown to private industrial establishments. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgments reported in Sita Ram and others v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute, (2008)5 SCC 75; Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and another v. Gitam Singh, (2013)5 SCC 136; Senior Superintendent Telegraph {Traffic} Bhopal, (2010)6 SCC 773 and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Man Singh, (2012)1 SCC 558.

6. Sri B.G. Ravinder Reddy, learned Counsel for the workmen submits that the reference by the Government to the Tribunal was comprehensive in nature and that it has taken in its fold, the aspect of regularization also. He submits that after taking into account, the various factors borne out from the record the Tribunal recorded a finding that there was no justification for retrenching the workmen and accordingly order of the retrenchment was set aside. He further submits that though the respondents were continuing in service for a long time rendering the same service as was being rendered by many regular workers, they have been retrenched and accordingly a direction was issued for reinstatem