##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30-09-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN WA No. 1317 of 2026 and CMP No.12300 of 2026 CNR: {HCMA012785482025}

1. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, 37, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore -43.

2. The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Coimbatore Limited, Erode Region, Chennimalai Road, Erode – 1.

3. The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Limited, Tiruppur Region, Tiruppur Town Depot I Campus, Tiruppur -641604.

..Appellant(s)

Vs P.Soundararaj ..Respondent(s)

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to allow the writ appeal and set aside the order dated 01.10.2024 passed in W.P.No.10561 of

2024.

For Appellant(s): Ms.Keerthana S.B.

for Mr.Anand Gopalan for ADVIT LAW CHAMBERS For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Nanish Kumar for Mr.R.KRISHNASWAMY

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

Under assail is the common writ order dated 01.10.2024 passed in W.P.No.10561 of 2024.

2. The facts in brief, not seriously controverted between the parties, are that the respondent was temporarily engaged in the Transport Corporation and they have approached the competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'Conferment of Permanent Status Act'). The competent authority passed an order in favour of the workmen on 31.05.2005. Subsequently, on 31.08.2005 a settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act was entered into between the Union and the Management of the Transport Corporation. Pursuant to the settlement, the respondent executed an undertaking that he will not claim any right in respect of the order passed by the competent authority under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act. In view of the said undertaking and in pursuance of the terms and conditions under the Section 12(3) settlement, the services of the respondent was regularised with effect from 01.09.2005.

3. Thereafter, the respondent was serving in the Transport Corporation continuously and suddenly after a lapse of nine years, he filed Writ Petition No.14648 of 2014 seeking a direction to pass appropriate orders regularising his services on completion of 480 days of service in accordance with the order passed by the competent authority under the Conferment of Permanent Status Act. A learned single Judge of this Court directed the Transport Corporation to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner therein and dispose of the same.

4. In implementation of the writ order, a rejection order came to be passed by the Transport Corporation vide proceedings dated 03.10.2023. The said order came to be challenged by way of the subsequent writ petition in WP No.10561 of 2024. The learned single Judge granted the benefit of the order passed by the competent authority under the Conferment of Permanent Status Act. Thus, the Transport Corporation has preferred the present writ appeal under Clause XV of the Letters Patent.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would mainly contend that the right in respect of the order passed by the authority under the Conferment of Permanent Status Act was given up by the respondent by executing an undertaking on the date of Section 12(3) settlement. Based on their undertaking and the 12(3) settlement, the services of the employees were regularised with effect from 01.09.2005 after a lapse of nine years, they have made an attempt to secure further benefits of retrospective regularisation based on the order passed by the authority under the Conferment of Permanent Status Act, which is impermissible.

6. She would rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in