WA/1317/2026 of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore Vs P.Soundararaj on 30 September 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Under assail is the common writ order dated 01.10.2024 passed in W.P.No.10561 of 2024.

2. The facts in brief, not seriously controverted between the parties, are that the respondent was temporarily engaged in the Transport Corporation and they have approached the competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'Conferment of Permanent Status Act'). The competent authority passed an order in favour of the workmen on 31.05.2005. Subsequently, on 31.08.2005 a settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act was entered into between the Union and the Management of the Transport Corporation. Pursuant to the settlement, the respondent executed an undertaking that he will not claim any right in respect of the order passed by the competent authority under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act. In view of the said undertaking and in pursuance of the terms and conditions under the Section 12(3) settlement, the services of the respondent was regularised with effect from 01.09.2005.

3. Thereafter, the respondent was serving in the Transport Corporation continuously and suddenly after a lapse of nine years, he filed Writ Petition No.14648 of 2014 seeking a direction to pass appropriate orders regularising his services on completion of 480 days of service in accordance with the order passed by the competent authority under the Conferment of Permanent Status Act. A learned single Judge of this Court directed the Transport Corporation to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner therein and dispose of the same.

4. In implementation of the writ order, a rejection order came to be passed by the Transport Corporation vide proceedings dated 03.10.2023. The said order came to be challenged by way of the subsequent writ petition in WP No.10561 of 2024. The learned single Judge granted the benefit of the order passed by the competent authority under the Conferment of Permanent Status Act. Thus, the Transport Corporation has preferred the present writ appeal under Clause XV of the Letters Patent.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would mainly contend that the right in respect of the order passed by the authority under the Conferment of Permanent Status Act was given up by the respondent by executing an undertaking on the date of Section 12(3) settlement. Based on their undertaking and the 12(3) settlement, the services of the employees were regularised with effect from 01.09.2005 after a lapse of nine years, they have made an attempt to secure further benefits of retrospective regularisation based on the order passed by the authority under the Conferment of Permanent Status Act, which is impermissible.

6. She would rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Prabhakar -vs- Joint Director, Sericulture Department and another1 , wherein the Apex Court dealt with the doctrine of lapse and delay as well as doctrine of acquiescence and non-suited the litigants, who approached the Court belatedly without any justification / explanation.

7. She relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited -vs- O.Veeraiyya2, wherein similar issue has been decided and a finding has been made that once the order passed by the authority is given up, it cannot be claimed at a later point of time by the workmen. The said judgment was followed by the Division Bench in R.Rajendran -vs- Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Limited and another3 .

8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would oppose by stating that the right conferred under the order passed by the competent authority under Section 3 of the Conferment of Permanent Status Act cannot 1(2015) 15 SCC Page 1 2(2025) MHC 2050 3(2026) MHC 2500

be taken away. The subsequent development of Section 12(3) settlement and regularisation would not be a bar to claim the benefit of the order passed by the competent authority under the Conferment of Permanent Status Act. He would rely on the following judgments. • Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Vellore -vs- The Inspector of Labour and another (W.A.No.962 of 2021 dated 25.01.2023)  The General Manager, (Administration) Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam -vs- The Inspector- cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour and others (W.A. (MD) Nos.1594 to 1599 of 2024)  The General Manager, (Administration) Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam -vs- K.Selvaraj and another (W.A (MD) Nos.848 of 2025 etc.,)

9. This Court has considered the rival submissions made between the parties to the lis.

10. Facts in the present case are not disputed. The competent authority under the Conferment of Permanent Status Act passed an award on 31.05.2005. Subsequently, Section 12(3) Settlement was arrived between the

Trade Union and the Management on 31.08.2005. In pursuance to the settlement, the workmen executed a letter of undertaking stating that they will not claim the benefit of the order passed by the competent authority under the Conferment of Permanent Status Act. Accordingly, their services were regularised with effect from 01.09.2005. In the present case, the respondent executed an undertaking giving up his rights in respect of the order passed by the competent authority under the Conferment of Permanent Status Act. Thus, he 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 his services on completion of 480 days.

11. The practice of filing a writ petition to dispose of the representation after several years at no circumstances be appreciated by this Court. Such writ petitions are filed by the litigants with an idea to restore dead cause of action or to claim the benefits which was given up long before. Thus, the Courts while entertaining such writ petitions even to dispose of the representation, has to ascertain the right of the persons approaching the Court. Routine orders directing the authorities to dispose of the representation would do no service to the cause of justice, but the litigants will be back again. In the present case also, another set of writ petitions were filed challenging the order passed by the Transport Corporation on merits.

12. Pertinently, there is no valid reason for unexplained delay. That apart, the 12(3) settlement dated 31.08.2005 and the consequential regularisation order dated 01.09.2005 remain unchallenged. Having accepted the settlement and thereafter giving an undertaking, the workmen cannot turn around and claim retrospective regularisation based on the order passed by the authority under the Conferment of Permanent Status Act. In the absence of any challenge to 12(3) settlement and the regularisation order, the relief granted by the writ Court is not in consonance with the principles of law.

13. In the context of the facts, the Supreme Court in the case of Prabhakar -vs- Joint Director, Sericulture Department and another cited supra, the Supreme Court has held as follows: “38. It is now a well-recognised principle of jurisprudence that a right not exercised for a long time is non-existent. Even when there is no limitation period prescribed by any statute relating to certain proceedings, in such cases courts have coined the doctrine of laches and delays as well as doctrine of acquiescence and non-suited the litigants who approached the Court belatedly without any justifiable explanation for bringing the action after unreasonable delay. Doctrine of laches is in fact an application of maxim of equity “delay defeats equities”. 39…..

40. Likewise, if a party having a right stands by and sees another acting in a manner inconsistent with that right and makes no objection while the act is in progress, he cannot afterwards complain. This principle is based on the doctrine of acquiescence implying that in such a case the party who did not make any objection acquiesced into the alleged wrongful act of the other party and, therefore, he has no right to complain against that alleged wrong.”

14. The Division Bench of this Court, in similar circumstances, considered the issues and held as follows : “

4. Admittedly, a 12(3) settlement had been entered into between the Trade Unions and the Management of the Transport Corporations on 31.08.2005. The terms and conditions of the 12(3) settlement were agreed between the parties. Consequently, all the daily wage employees engaged on consolidated pay were regularized and were brought under the regular establishment in the regular time scale of pay. The benefits of regularization were granted to those employees pursuant to the terms agreed in the 12(3) settlement entered into between the Management of the Transport Corporations and the workmen. 5…. 6…. 7….

8. Learned Additional Advocate General would further submit that in the present case, the workmen having agreed to the 12(3) settlement, joined in the sanctioned post and were receiving time scale of pay for more than ten years, the petitions filed by them under the Permanent Status Act ought not to have been entertained by the authority concerned. The 12(3) settlement is binding on the parties by virtue of Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. When the terms and conditions in the 12(3) settlement are binding on the parties and the respondent ~ workmen having accepted the regularization pursuant to the 12(3) settlement, they cannot claim retrospective regularization of services under the Permanent Status Act on completion of 480 days of continuous service.”

15. In respect of the judgments relied upon by the respondent, the facts are distinguishable. In those cases, challenge was made against the order of the authority under the Conferment of Permanent Status Act and there was no such undertaking given by the workmen. Thus, the said cases are of no avail to the respondent. That apart, in the said judgments delay, laches and acquiescence have not been considered by the Courts.

16. In view of the facts as well as the legal position as discussed above, the writ order impugned dated 01.10.2024 made in W.P.No.10561 of 2024 is set aside and the writ appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 30-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SLI

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. SLI WA No. 1317 of 2026 and CMP No.12300 of 2026 30-09-2026