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?

No. Where the workmen executed a letter of undertaking, pursuant to a settlement, stating that they will not claim the benefit of the order passed by the competent authority under the Conferment of Permanent Status Act, and their services were accordingly regularised, 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.

Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 — s.3 — Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — s.12(3), s.18(3) — Settlement and undertaking — Delay, laches and acquiescence — Conferment of Permanent Status Act, 1981 — s.3 — Undertaking giving up the order — Benefit not revivable — Held: Workmen who execute an undertaking giving up their rights in respect of the order passed by the competent authority under the Conferment of Permanent Status Act cannot turn around and claim the benefit of that order after a lapse of years. (¶10) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — s.12(3), s.18(3) — Settlement unchallenged — Retrospective regularisation barred — Held further: Where the Section 12(3) settlement and the consequential regularisation order remain unchallenged, relief granted by the writ Court for retrospective regularisation on completion of 480 days is not in consonance with the principles of law. (¶12) Writ practice — Direction to dispose of a representation — Right of the litigant to be ascertained — Held further: A Court entertaining a writ petition merely to direct disposal of a representation must ascertain the right of the person approaching it; routine orders of that kind do no service to the cause of justice and serve only to restore a dead cause of action. (¶11) Doctrine of laches and delay — Doctrine of acquiescence — Right not exercised for a long time — Held further: A right not exercised for a long time is non-existent, and a party who stands by while another acts inconsistently with that right, making no objection, cannot afterwards complain. Writ order set aside; writ appeals allowed. (¶13, ¶16)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore v. R.Rajendran — and get the Madras High Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India