The acceptance of terms and conditions of a settlement and failure to approach the competent authority under the Act precludes a claim for retrospective regularization after a significant lapse of time.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the proceedings bearing Lr.No.32/1532/E7/TNSTC(VPM)/2005 dated 06.07.2013 issued by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to regularize the petitioners' service from the date of completion of service of 240 days from the initial appointment and to pay all other monetary and service benefits.)

Common Order

1. The order of rejection dated 06.07.2013 issued by the second respondent rejecting the claim of the petitioners to grant retrospective regularization of service on completion of 240 days of service under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] is under challenge in the present writ petitions.

2. The petitioners are now working as drivers and conductors in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd. All the petitioners were initially engaged as daily wage drivers and conductors and the petitioners stated that they have completed 240 days of service and their services ought to have been made permanent on completion of 240 days of service. However, the respondents have not given permanent status on completion of 240 days of service on the ground that the Government imposed ban during the relevant period from 2001-2005 and thereafter, the services of the petitioners were absorbed in regular vacancy and now they are working as permanent employees of the transport corporation.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners mainly contended that the petitioners were initially engaged as daily wage employees and therefore, on completion of 240 days of service, they are entitled to be regularized in permanent post under the provisions of the Act. Contrarily, the petitioners were allowed to continue only as daily wage employees and thereafter, a 12(3) Wage Settlement was entered into between the trade union and the transport corporation and based on that, the services of the petitioners were regularized. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to be regularized with retrospective effect from the date on which they have completed 240 days of service under the provisions of the Act.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners reiterated that the respective Branch Managers of the transport corporation recommended the case of the petitioners for permanent absorption on completion of 240 days of service during the relevant point of time and the said recommendation was not considered by the competent authority. Contrarily, the benefit of regularization was granted only with effect from 01.09.2005 instead of the date from which the petitioners have completed 240 days of service. The petitioners stated that they were initially engaged as daily wage employees through employment exchange and by following the recruitment process. Thus, there was no irregularity in engaging the petitioners as daily wage employees and when the petitioners' initial employment was in accordance with the rules, the incumbents are entitled to regularization from the date on which they have completed 240 days of service under the provisions of the Act.

5. It is contended that there was no justification in keeping the petitioners as daily wage employees for a continuous period of more than five years despite the fact that the petitioners were initially appointed through District Employment Exchange. The petitioners submitted a representation to the respondents and the respondents rejected the claim of the petitioners for retrospective regularization in proceedings dated 06.07.2013, which is under challenge in the present writ petitions.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents transport corporation made a submission that the initial appointment of the petitioners were made on daily wage basis. The Government imposed ban during