Under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, can a workman who has executed an undertaking giving up the benefit of an order passed by the competent authority later claim that benefit?

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Under assail is the common writ order dated 01.01.2024 passed in W.P.Nos.10560 and 10562 of 2024.

The facts in brief, not seriously controverted between the parties, are that the respondents were temporarily engaged in the Transport Corporation and they have approached the competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'Conferment of Permanent Status Act'). The competent authority passed an order in favour of the workmen on 31.05.2005. Subsequently, on 31.08.2005 a settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act was entered into between the Union and the Management of the Transport Corporation. Pursuant to the settlement, the respondents executed an undertaking that they will not claim any right in respect of the order passed by the competent authority under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act. In view of the said undertaking and in pursuance of the terms and conditions under the Section 12(3) settlement, the services of the respondents were regularised with effect from 01.09.2005.

Thereafter, the respondents were serving in the Transport Corporation continuously and suddenly after a lapse of nine years, they filed Writ Petition Nos.14644 and 14653 of 2014 seeking a direction to pass appropriate orders regularising their services on completion of 480 days of service in accordance with the order passed by the competent authority under the Conferment of Permanent Status Act. A learned single Judge of this Court directed the Transport Corporation to consider the representation submitted by the petitioners therein and dispose of the same.

In implementation of the writ order, a rejection order came to be passed by the Transport Corporation vide proceedings dated 03.10.2023. The said order came to be challenged by way of the subsequent writ petitions in W.P.Nos.10560 and 10562 of 2024. The learned single Judge granted the benefit of the order passed by the competent authority under the Conferment of Permanent Status Act. Thus, the Transport Corporation has preferred the present writ appeals under Clause XV of the Letters Patent.

Mr.Anand Gopalan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would mainly contend that the right in respect of the order passed by the authority under the Conferment of Permanent Status Act was given up by the respondents by executing an undertaking on the date of Section 12(3) settlement. Based on their undertaking and the 12(3) settlement, the services of the employees were regularised with effect from 01.09.2005 after a lapse of nine years, they have made an attempt to secure further benefits of retrospective regularisation based on the order passed by the authority under the Conferment of Permanent Status Act, which is impermissible.

He would rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Prabhakar -vs- Joint Director, Sericulture Department and another[^1] , wherein the Apex Court dealt with the doctrine of lapse and delay as well as doctrine of acquiescence and non-suited the litigants, who approached the Court belatedly without any justification / explanation.

He relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited -vs- O.Veeraiyya[^2], wherein similar issue has been decided and a finding has been made that once the order passed by the authority is given up, it cannot be claimed at a later point of time by the workmen. The said judgment was followed by the Division Bench in R.Rajendran -vs- Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Limited and another[^3] .

Learned Senior Counsel Mr.S.Ravindran appearing for the respondents would oppose by stating that the right conferred under the order passed by the competent authority under Section 3 of the Conferment of Permanent Status Act cannot be taken away. The subsequent development of Section 12(3) settlement and regularisation would not be a bar to claim the benefit of the order passed by the competent authority under the Conferment of Permanent Status Act. He would rely on the following judgments. • Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Vellore -vs- The Inspector of Labour and another (W.A.No.962 of 2021 dated 25.01.2023)  The General Manager, (Administration) Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam -vs- The Inspector- cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour and others (W.A. (MD) Nos.1594 to 1599 of 2024)  The General Manager, (Administration) Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam -vs- K.Selvaraj and another (W.A (MD) Nos.848 of 2025 etc.,)

This Court has considered the rival submissions made between the parties to the lis.

Facts in the present case are not disputed. The competent authority under the Conferment of Permanent Status Act passed an award on 31.05.2005. Subsequently, Section 12(3) Settlement was arrived between the Trade Union and the Management on 31.08.2005. In pursuance to the settlement, the workmen executed a letter of undertaking stating that they will not claim the benefit of the order passed by the competent authority under the Conferment of Permanent Status Act. Accordingly, their services were regularised with effect from 01.09.2005. In the present case, the respondents executed an undertaking giving up their rights in respect of the order passed by the competent authority under the Conferment of Permanent Status Act. Thus, they cannot turn around and claim the benefit of the said order after a lapse of nine years by filing a writ petition seeking regularisation of their services on completion of 480 days.

The practice of filing a writ petition to dispose of the representation after several years at no circumstances be appreciated by this Court. Such writ petitions are filed by the litigants with an idea to restore dead cause of action or to claim the benefits which was given up long before. Thus, the Courts while entertaining such writ petitions even to dispose of the representation, has to ascertain the right of the persons approaching the Court. Routine orders directing the authorities to dispose of the representation would do no service to the cause of justice, but the litigants will be back again. In the present case also, another set of writ petitions were filed challenging the order passed by the Transport Corporation on merits.

Pertinently, there is no valid reason for unexplained delay. That apart, the 12(3) settlement dated 31.08.2005 and the consequential regularisation order dated 01.09.2005 remain unchallenged. Having accepted the settlement and thereafter giving an undertaking, the workmen cannot turn around and claim retrospective regularisation based on the order passed by the authority under the Conferment of Permanent Status Act. In the absence of any challenge to 12(3) settlement and the regularisation order, the relief granted by the writ Court is not in consonance with the principles of law.

In the context of the facts, the Supreme Court in the case of Prabhakar -vs- Joint Director, Sericulture Department and another cited supra, the Supreme Court has held as follows: “38. It is now a well-recognised principle of jurisprudence that a right not exercised for a long time is non-existent. Even when there is no limitation period prescribed by any statute relating to certain proceedings, in such cases courts have coined the doctrine of laches and delays as well as doctrine of acquiescence and non-suited the litigants who approached the Court belatedly without any justifiable explanation for bringing the action after unreasonable delay. Doctrine of laches is in fact an application of maxim of equity “delay defeats equities”. 39….. 40. Likewise, if a party having a right stands by and sees another acting in a manner inconsistent with that right and makes no objection while the act is in progress, he cannot afterwards complain. This principle is based on the doctrine of acquiescence implying that in such a case the party who did not make any objection acquiesced into the alleged wrongful act of the other party and, therefore, he has no right to complain against that alleged wrong.”

The Division Bench of this Court, in similar circumstances, considered the issues and held as follows :

In respect of the judgments relied upon by the respondents, the facts are distinguishable. In those cases, challenge was made against the order of the authority under the Conferment of Permanent Status Act and there was no such undertaking given by the workmen. Thus, the said cases are of no avail to the respondents. That apart, in the said judgments delay, laches and acquiescence have not been considered by the Courts.

In view of the facts as well as the legal position as discussed above, the writ order impugned dated 01.10.2024 made in W.P.Nos.10560 and 10562 of 2024 is set aside and the writ appeals are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 18-08-2026