Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Dhandapani, J
Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
A. Rajaji – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to order of labour authority regarding retrospective permanency. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the impact of prior settlements and unexplained delays in claims. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. setting aside orders that allow claims without sufficient justification for delay. (Para 7 , 8) |
ORDER
This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 06.06.2023 passed in Case No.9 of 2022 by the 2nd respondent herein and seeking 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 driver on a stop-gap arrangement and was subsequently appointed as a daily wage driver on 01.09.2005. The first respondent was later granted regularisation with effect from 01.06.2006 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 17 years, the first respondent filed a claim petition in Case No.9 of 2022 before the second respondent seeking regularisation.
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
