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 inordinate delay of several years, as such stale claims lack bona fides.

ORDER

This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 01.08.2022 passed in Case No.4027 of 2019 by the 2nd respondent herein and to quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

2.The case of the petitioner is that the first respondent was initially engaged on a temporary basis as a Reserve Crew Driver on a stop-gap arrangement and was subsequently appointed as a daily wage driver on 24.12.2000. The first respondent was later granted regularisation with effect from 01.07.2006 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 regularisations could be made during the currency of the ban period. After a lapse of 18 years, the first respondent filed a claim petition under Conferment Permanent Status Act, in Case No.4027 of

2019 before the second respondent seeking regularisation. However, the second respondent, without appreciating the counter statement and without any supporting documents from the applicant erroneously passed the impugned order directing regularisation. Hence the present writ petition has been filed.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue involved in the present writ petition is no longer res integra, as the same has already been decided by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A(MD) No.442 of 2025 etc., batch. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court held that the employees having accepted the terms of the 12(3) settlement and served for about ten years, cannot turn around at one fine morning and file a petition under the Permanent Status Act claiming retrospective permanent status on completion of 480 days of continuous service till the date on which they were regularised in the sanctioned post. It was further held that a person, who has slept over his rights, cannot wake up at one fine morning and claim such benefits and in the ordinary circumstances, such claims are to be construed as stale. Further, this Court had also passed a detailed order with regard to the Conferment of Permanent Status in W.P No.7191 of 2024 etc., Batch. Accordingly, he prayed for appropriate orders.

4.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that, admittedly the first respondent had entered into service as a temporary driver in the year 2000, and that his services were regularised only in the year 2006. As per Conferment of Permanent Status Act, the first respondent was entitled to be made permanently upon after completion 480 days within a calendar year, however, the same was not done by the petitioner Corporation. Subsequently, on the basis of legal advice, the first respondent filed a petition under said Act, which came to be allowed. Hence, the said order does not warrants any interference. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6.This Court in W.P No.7191 of 2024 etc. batch cases, held as follows:

25. It is not disputed by the respondents that based on the settlement arrived at between the Unions and the Corporation on 31.8.2005, the respondents, who were daily wagers and working as temporary/casual drivers and conductors were absorbed on completion of 240 days of continuous service and regularised in the service in the year 2006.

26. It is also not disputed by the respondents that they were working as temporary/casual drivers and conductors in the Corporation. The continuity of service of the said respondents from the time of their entry in the post o