Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.Dhandapani, J
Management Metropolitan Transport Corporation Chennai Limited – Appellant
Versus
Inspector of Labour – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute regarding retrospective permanency claims after long delays. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. settlement under s.12(3) of the industrial disputes act bars subsequent retrospective claims. (Para 5) |
| 3. court intervention to set aside orders based on stale claims and settled legal principles. (Para 7 , 8) |
ORDER
This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16.05.2023 passed in Case No.C/1170 /2021 by the 1st respondent herein and seeking to quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the second respondent was initially engaged on a temporary basis as a conductor on a stop-gap arrangement and was subsequently appointed as a daily wage conductor on 21.02.2000. The second respondent was 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 regularisations could be made during the currency of the ban period. After a lapse of 17 years, the second respondent filed a claim petition under the Conferment of Permanent Status Act in
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
