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.10538 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.14652 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.10538 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 the case of Prabhakar -vs- Joint Director, Sericulture Department and another, 1(2015) 15 SCC Page 1 , wherein the Apex Court dealt with the doctrine of lapse and delay as well as doctrine of acquiescence and non-suited the litigants, who approached the Court belatedly without any justification / explanation.

7. She relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited -vs- O.Veeraiyya, 2(2025) MHC 2050, wherein similar issue has been decided and a finding has been made that once the order passed by the authority is given up, it cannot be claimed at a later point of time by the workmen. The said judgment was followed by the Division Bench in R.Rajendran -vs- Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Limited and another, 3(2026) MHC 2500.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would oppose by stating that the right conferred under the order passed by the competent authority under Section 3 of the Conferment o