Workmen who waive permanent-status benefits under a binding settlement cannot later claim retrospective regularisation.

The respondent, a temporarily engaged employee of the Transport Corporation, 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. A Section 12(3) settlement was entered into on 31 August 2005, and the respondent undertook not to claim benefits under that order. His services were regularised from 1 September 2005 under the settlement.

In 2014, he sought regularisation from the date he completed 480 days of service. Following an earlier direction to consider his representation, the Corporation rejected his claim in 2023. The respondent challenged that rejection in W.P. No. 10556 of 2024, which the Single Judge allowed. The Corporation appealed.

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

Whether the respondent’s delay and failure to challenge the settlement and consequential regularisation order barred the claim

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

Under the doctrines of laches and acquiescence, a claimant may be denied relief for unjustified delay or where, knowing of an asserted right, the claimant stands by while conduct inconsistent with that right occurs; the Court relied on Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department.

It also followed the Division Bench decision in Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. O. Veeraiyya and its subsequent application in R. Rajendran v. Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd., concerning employees who accepted regularisation under the 12(3) settlement and later sought retrospective regularisation.

The Court found that the respondent had expressly undertaken not to claim the benefit of the 2005 permanent-status order, accepted regularisation under the settlement, and did not challenge either the settlement or the consequential regularisation order. His later claim for retrospective regularisation was therefore inconsistent with the undertaking and the settlement he had accepted.

The Court also found no valid explanation for the delay and held that the earlier direction to consider his representation did not revive a claim otherwise barred by delay and acquiescence.

It distinguished the authorities cited by the respondent because, unlike this case, they involved no undertaking of this kind and did not address delay, laches, or acquiescence.

It set aside the Single Judge’s order dated 1 October 2024, allowed the writ appeal, made no order as to costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.