Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.DHANDAPANI
Management of Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Limited – Appellant
Versus
M.Nagarajan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishing the factual matrix of delayed claims for permanent status. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. competing arguments on settlement acceptance versus retrospective permanent status rights. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. analysis of stale claims and the absence of bona fides in delayed legal proceedings. (Para 5) |
| 4. setting aside impugned orders based on settled precedent regarding stale claims. (Para 7) |
ORDER :
M. Dhandapani, J.
These four petitions have been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 30.04.2024 and 11.03.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent herein, and to quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.
2.The case of the petitioner in respective writ petitions is that the first respondent therein were initially engaged on a temporary basis as Reserve Crew Drivers and Reserve Crew Conductors on a stop-gap arrangement and were subsequently appointed as daily wage drivers and conductors in the years 1999 and 2000. They were later granted regularisation with effect from 01.09.2005 pursuant to the 12(3) Settlement dated 31.08.2005. It is the further case of the petitioner that, in view of the Government ban order dated 05.07.2001, no fresh appointments or regulari
Once workers accept permanent status via a formal industrial settlement, they cannot subsequently claim retrospective permanency after a significant, unexplained delay, as such stale claims lack the ....
Employees who have accepted regularisation through a valid settlement and served for a significant period are estopped from subsequently claiming retrospective permanent status after an inordinate de....
Workmen who have accepted the benefits of a settled regularization agreement and delayed seeking further retrospective permanent status for over a decade are precluded from reopening such claims, as ....
Employees who have accepted regularization under a 12(3) settlement of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot challenge their status to claim retrospective permanency under the 1981 Act after an inordina....
Employees regularized under an Industrial Disputes Act 12(3) settlement cannot seek retrospective permanent status after an inordinate and unexplained delay, as such claims are considered stale and i....
Employees who have accepted regularization through a 12(3) settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are precluded from subsequently raising belated claims for retrospective permanent statu....
Employees who have accepted regularization under a settlement agreement cannot, after a significant lapse of time, claim retrospective permanent status anterior to the date of settlement as such clai....
An employee who accepts permanent status under a 12(3) settlement and fails to challenge the regularization for over a decade cannot subsequently raise a stale claim for retrospective permanent statu....
Permanent Status Act overrides 12(3) settlements; workmen gain permanent status after 480 days continuous service.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
