Workmen who relinquish permanent-status claims under a binding settlement cannot later seek retrospective regularisation.

The respondent was temporarily engaged by the appellant Transport Corporation.

On 31 May 2005, the competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, passed an order in his favour.

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 benefits under the competent authority’s order; his service was regularised from 1 September 2005 under the settlement.

In 2014, he sought a direction to consider regularisation from completion of 480 days’ service. After the Corporation rejected his claim in 2023, he challenged that decision in W.P. No. 10538 of 2024. A single judge granted relief based on the 2005 order, and the Corporation appealed.

1. Whether the respondent, having undertaken not to claim the benefit of the competent authority’s order and accepted regularisation under the Section 12(3) settlement, could later claim retrospective regularisation under that order.

2. Whether the respondent’s claim was barred by delay, laches and acquiescence, given the nine-year delay and the absence of any challenge to the settlement or consequential regularisation order.

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 settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is binding on the parties under Section 18(3); workmen who accept regularisation under such a settlement cannot claim retrospective regularisation inconsistent with its terms.

The Court relied on Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department, which states that unexplained delay may defeat relief under the doctrines of laches and acquiescence.

It also followed the Division Bench decision in Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited v. O. Veeraiyya, applied in R. Rajendran v. Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Limited, concerning the effect of giving up a claim under the Permanent Status Act pursuant to a settlement.

The Court found that the respondent had expressly undertaken not to claim the benefit of the 2005 competent-authority order, accepted regularisation effective from 1 September 2005 under the Section 12(3) settlement, and did not challenge either the settlement or the regularisation order.

His later attempt to obtain retrospective regularisation based on the earlier order was therefore inconsistent with the undertaking and accepted settlement.

The Court also held that he had offered no valid explanation for the nine-year delay; his earlier petition seeking only consideration of a representation did not overcome the delay or revive the claim.

The authorities relied on by the respondent were distinguishable because, according to the Court, they involved no comparable undertaking and did not address delay, laches or acquiescence.

It also held that the unexplained delay and acquiescence defeated the claim.

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 ordered.