Explain discrepancies in ex-gratia distribution: Telangana HC to Sigachi Industries Limited

The Telangana High Court on Thursday (January 29, 2026) instructed the counsel of Sigachi Industries Limited to explain the discrepancies appearing in the distribution of ex-gratia under different heads to the kith and kin of the 54 persons who died in an explosion on its factory premises at Pashamylaram in Sangareddy district on June 30 last year.

A bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin, hearing a Public Interest Litigation petition filed by a retired scientist K. Babu Rao, directed the factory counsel to explain details of the compensation and other benefits paid to the families of the victims by March 12. The bench also directed the Additional Advocate General (AAG) T. Rajinikanth Reddy to secure instructions on the matter and apprise the bench of the details. 

The bench impleaded the Regional Commissioner, Employee Provident Fund Office-Hyderabad, the Director of Drug Control Administration and the Regional Director, Employee State Insurance-Hyderabad in the plea and directed them to file their counter affidavit by the next date of hearing. The Amicus Curiae in the case, Dominic Fernandes, informed the bench that ₹23.17 crore was the amount agreed upon by the company to pay compensation to the families of the victims.

Out of this, ₹16,44,47,525 was already paid towards compensation, while post-dated cheques were issued for an amount of ₹6.05 crore. The Amicus Curiae informed the bench that there was a confusion of sorts over the compensation paid to the families of missing persons under different heads. He explained that the amount of ex-gratia to be accrued to the families of workers on the rolls of the company, temporary workers and others was not uniform. 

The Advocate Dominic Fernandes said that the Experts Committee, which inquired into the explosion and submitted a report, maintained that the company did not co-operate with it. The AAG said the police filed charge-sheet against seven of the accused. While two of the accused secured protection from arrest orders from the court, petitions of the others are pending at trial court while the company chief executive officer was already arrested.