Workmen who waive permanent-status claims under a binding 12(3) settlement cannot later seek retrospective regularisation.

The respondent was temporarily engaged by the 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 favour of the workmen.

On 31 August 2005, the Union and Management 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, and his services were regularised from 1 September 2005.

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 the claim in 2023.

The respondent’s subsequent writ petition was allowed, prompting the Corporation’s appeal.

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

Whether the respondent’s unexplained delay and acquiescence, together with his failure to challenge the settlement and consequential regularisation, barred the claim

Under Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a settlement of the kind discussed by the Court binds the parties; employees who accept regularisation under such a settlement cannot subsequently claim retrospective regularisation under the Permanent Status Act on completion of 480 days of continuous service.

The Court also applied the doctrines of laches and acquiescence: a claimant may be non-suited for approaching the Court after unreasonable, unexplained delay, and a party who stands by while another acts inconsistently with the asserted right may lose the right to complain later.

It followed the Division Bench approach in Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited v. O. Veeraiyya.

The respondent had expressly undertaken not to claim the permanent-status order’s benefits in connection with the 12(3) settlement, accepted regularisation from 1 September 2005, and left both the settlement and the regularisation order unchallenged.

His attempt, after an unexplained delay of about nine years, to obtain retrospective regularisation was therefore inconsistent with his undertaking and accepted settlement.

Applying the principles of laches and acquiescence, the Court held that he could not revive the claim through later writ proceedings; the respondent’s cited authorities were distinguishable because they involved no comparable undertaking and had not considered delay, laches, and acquiescence.

It set aside the order dated 1 October 2024 in W.P. No. 10540 of 2024, allowed the writ appeal, made no order as to costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.