A workman who relinquishes permanent-status benefits under a settlement cannot later claim retrospective regularisation.

The respondent obtained an order from the competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, on 31 May 2005. On 31 August 2005, the Corporation and the union entered into a settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent undertook not to claim the benefit of the authority’s order, and his services were regularised from 1 September 2005 under the settlement.

In 2014, he sought a direction requiring the Corporation to consider his request for regularisation from completion of 480 days’ service. Following that direction, the Corporation rejected his request in 2023. The respondent challenged the rejection in W.P. No. 10567 of 2024, and the Single Judge granted him the benefit of the authority’s order. The Corporation appealed.

Whether the respondent, having undertaken not to claim the benefit of the permanent-status order and accepted regularisation under the Section 12(3) settlement, could later seek retrospective regularisation under that order.

Whether the respondent’s delayed claim was barred by laches and acquiescence, particularly when the settlement and consequential regularisation had not been challenged.

Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, provides the statutory basis for conferring permanent status on qualifying workmen. A Section 12(3) settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is binding on the parties; the Court also referred to Section 18(3) in discussing the binding effect of such settlements.

Under the doctrines of laches and acquiescence, a litigant who delays unreasonably without justification, or stands by while conduct inconsistent with an asserted right occurs, may be denied relief (Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department, (2015) 15 SCC 1, quoted at pp. 7–8).

The Court applied the principle that workmen who accept regularisation under a binding settlement cannot later claim retrospective regularisation under the Permanent Status Act (Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. O. Veeraiyya, 2025 MHC 2050; see also R. Rajendran v. Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd., 2026 MHC 2500).

The respondent had expressly undertaken not to claim the benefit of the competent authority’s order and accepted regularisation under the 31 August 2005 settlement, which took effect on 1 September 2005. He did not challenge either the settlement or the regularisation order, but sought retrospective regularisation after an unexplained delay of about nine years.

Applying the principles of laches, acquiescence and the binding effect of the settlement, the Court held that he could not later revive the claim he had given up. The respondent’s cited decisions were distinguishable because, unlike this case, they involved no such undertaking and did not address delay, laches or acquiescence.

The writ appeal was allowed, the Single Judge’s order dated 1 October 2024 was set aside, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed. No costs were awarded.