[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
The General Manager vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Labour ... on 10 April, 2026
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
____________
W.P. No.7191/2024, etc. Batch
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on Pronounced on
26.03.2026 10.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P. NOS. 7191, 37650, 37655, 37440, 37659, 37449, 37447, 37433, 37354,
37350, 37339, 37349, 37347, 37343, 37668, 37665, 37445 OF 2024
AND
W.M.P. NOS. 40712, 40459, 40370, 40725, 40708, 40362, 40360, 40715, 40367,
8042, 40366, 27131, 40453, 40450, 40445, 40458, 40731, 40358 OF 2024
W.P. NO.7191 OF 2024
1. The General Manager
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Salem) Ltd.
Salem Division – 1
No.12, Ramakrishnan Road
Salem 636 007.
2. The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Salem) Ltd.
Salem Division – 1
No.12, Ramakrishnan Road
Salem 636 007. .. Petitioners
- Vs -
1. The Assistant Commissioner of
Labour (Enforcement)
Authority under the Tamil Nadu
Industrial Establishments
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.7191/2024, etc. Batch
(Conferment of Permanent Status
To Workmen) Act, 1981, Salem – 8.
2. M. Azhagarasan
3. P.Alaguraj
4. G.Aiyathurai
5. P. Ammasi
6. T.Anbazhagan
7. T.Arivalagan
8. G.Arunan
9. P. Balasubramanian
10. K.Baskar
11. P. Chinnasamy
12. P. Chandrasekaran
13. P. Dhanishlal
14. A.Dhanish
15. M.Dharmalingam
16. V.Durairaji
17. T. Ganapathi
18. S.Irudhayasamy
19. S. Govindhan
20. N.Govindaraj
21. M.Govindasamy
22. M.Jayakumar
23. S.Jothikumar
24. N.Kalai Kolan
25. V.Kaliyamoorthi
26. R.Kanakaratinam
27. P. Kanakasundaram
28. K.Karunanidhi
29. Krishnamuruthi.A
30. N.Kathirvel
31. P. Krishnamoorthi
32. R.Krishnaraj
33. M.Kumar
34. C.Mariyappan
35. A.Sakthivel
36. P.Sakthivel
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.7191/2024, etc. Batch
37. A.Sangaralingam
38. R.Sekar
39. P.K.Sivakumar
40. P. Sekar
41. R.Sekar
42. I. Selladurai
43. K.Gunasekaran
44. S.Selvaganesan
45. P.Selvakumar
46. K.Senthilnathan
47. E. Subramaniyan
48. T.P.Subramaniyan
49. M.Sundaram
50. R.Sureshkumar
51. P. Raja
52. I. Selvam
53. M.Selvarasu
54. N.Selvarasu
55. M.Senthamaraikannan
56. G.Senthilkumar
57. A. Senthilkumaran
58. P. Sekar
59. E. Rajamanikkam
60. K.Rajamanikkam
61. R.Rajamanikkam
62. S. Rajamanikkam
63. S. Rajamanikkam
64. A.P. Rajan
65. M.Rajendran
66. M.Rajendran
67. M.Rajendran
68. A.Ramalingam
69. A.Ramasamy
70. M.Ramasamy
71. C.Rangasamy
72. G.Ravi
73. K.Ravi
74. V.Ravichandran
3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.7191/2024, etc. Batch
75. K.Ravichandran
76. R.Rangarajan
77. S. Ponnazhagan
78. B.Ponnambalam
79. C.Ponnusamy
80. K.Ponnusamy
81. C.Pulikesi
82. P. Rajamani
83. R.Rajamani
84. T.S.Gunasekaran
85. K.Loganathan
86. M.Madhavan
87. P. Madhavan
88. J.Mahadevan
89. S. Mahesh
90. S. Mani
91. P. Manickam
92. J.Manivel
93. P. Manoharan
94. S. Marimuthu
95. M.Maasalanaickan
96. S. Madhavan
97. K.Madheswaran
98. N.Madheswaran
99. P. Mohan
100. V.Munusamy
101. S. Murugesan
102. T.M.Murugan
103. P. Murugesan
104. Amurugesan
105. K.Murugesan
106. M. Murugesan
107. T. Mustafa
108. K.Muthusamy
109. M. Muthusamy
110. C.Natesan
111. R.Ravi
112. G.Palanisamy
4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.7191/2024, etc. Batch
113. M. Palanivel
114. S.R. Palaniappan
115. P. Periyasamy
116. M.M. Periyasamy
117. M. Tamizhmaran
118. M. Thangaraj
119. M. Thangavel
120. K.Thiyagarajan
121. S. Vadivel
122. D. Vasudevan
123. P. Velavan
124. A. Veluchamy
125. O.K.Venkatachalam .. Respondents
W.P. No.7191 of 2024 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying this Court to issue a writ of mandamus holding that the provisions of the
Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to
Workmen) Act, 1981, cannot be invoked against the petitioner, the applications
of the 2nd to 125th respondents are hit by delay, laches and acquiescence and
forbear the 1st respondent from proceeding with proceedings
No.Tha.Na.Tho.Nee. (Pa.Nee.) Sa.Va. No.31/2023.
For Petitioners : Mr. Anand Gopalan for AGAM
Legal in all writ petitions
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravindran, SC, for
Ms.S.Girija for RR-2 to 6, 8, 10
to 13, 15 to 24, 26 to 33, 35 to
37, 39 to 48, 50 to 53, 55 to 61,
63, 66 to 68, 71 to 74, 76 to 88,
90 to 93, 95 to 106 & 108 to 122
In WP No.7191/2024
5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.7191/2024, etc. Batch
Mr.S.Ravindran, SC for
Ms.V.Porkodi for R-2 in WP Nos.
37655, 37447 & 37343/2024
Mr.A.Selvendran, Spl. GP for R-1
in all the writ petitions
No Appearance for RR-7, 9, 14,
25, 49, 65, 70, 89, 107, 124, 125,
34, 38, 54, 64, 69, 75, R94 in WP
No.7191/2024
No Appearance for R2 in WP
Nos. 37650, 37659, 37354,
37350, 37347, 37668,
37339/2024
R2 - Not ready Notice in WP
Nos. 37349 & 37665/2024
RR-123 & 62 - Not Ready Notice
in WP No.7191/2024
COMMON ORDER
Aggrieved by the act of the 1 st respondent in entertaining the proceedings
initiated by respondents 2 to 125 seeking conferment of permanent status under
the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to
Workmen) Act, 1981 (for short ‘Act, 1981’) as being hit by delay and laches and
not invokable against the petitioners, the present petitions have been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.7191/2024, etc. Batch
2. Since the facts in all the writ petitions and the relief sought for in all the
writ petitions are one and the same, the facts in W.P. No.7191 of 2024 is narrated
and the decision based on the aforesaid facts would cover the reliefs sought for
in the other petitions as well.
3. For the sake of convenience, while the petitioners in all the writ
petitions and the private respondents/workmen in all the writ petitions will be
referred to as ‘Corporation’ and ‘respondents’ and the Conferment of Permanent
Status Authority, who is shown as a respondent in all the writ petitions will be
referred to as ‘Authority’.
4. It is the case of the Corporation that Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Salem) Ltd., is an undertaking of the Government of Tamil Nadu and
is bound by the directions of the Government issued from time to time, including
appointment, salary, etc. It is the further averment that to render uninterrupted
service to the public even in the most emergent situations, including strike,
calamities and absence of employees, the Corporation had to engage temporary
conductors and drivers on need basis and they were paid daily wages for the days
of service rendered by them.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.7191/2024, etc. Batch
5. It is the further averment of the Corporation that some casual and
temporary employees had approached the Authority under Act, 1981, as early as
in the year 2001 and got orders granting them permanency in the year 2005.
G.O. No.463 dated 23.11.2001 was issued prohibiting recruitment in view of the
ban on creation of new posts. In the midst of the aforesaid ban, representation
was given by the Unions and a settlement u/s 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 was entered into between the petitioners and the Unions on
31.08.2005 in which the absorption of temporary/casual drivers and conductors
were agreed upon. Based on the said Section 12 (3) settlement, respondents 2 to
125 and few others, who were appointed as daily wagers, on completion of 240
days of continuous service, their services were regularised with the Corporation
in the year 2006.
6. It is the further averment of the Corporation that in the year 2016, some
of the employees, who had obtained orders from the Authority approached this
Court claiming that they should be granted relief in terms of the order dated
31.3.2005, which was put in issue before this Court leading to orders being
passed by the Corporation granting permanent status to the said persons on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.7191/2024, etc. Batch
basis of the order passed by the Authority. The respondents, taking cue from the
said litigation, had filed writ petitions before this Court in the year 2021, after 15
years of their appointment as permanent employees, claiming that they should
also be issued orders as was done to other persons, who had obtained orders
from the Authority.
7. It is the further averment of the Corporation that during the hearing on
29.3.2023, the respondents sought permission of this Court to withdraw the
petitions with liberty to pursue remedy under Act, 1981 and the Court was
informed that the respondents had moved the Authority on 11.12.2023 and
recording the same and leaving the contentions open, the writ petitions were
disposed of. The applications moved by the Authority were entertained by the
Authority and against such entertainment of the applications the present
petitions have been preferred before this Court.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Act, 1981 is
not applicable to the Corporation, as it is not an industrial establishment as
provided under Section 2 (3) of Act, 1981. It is the further submission of the
learned counsel that the respondents were made permanent pursuant to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.7191/2024, etc. Batch
settlement arrived at u/s 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, they
cannot seek the benefit of permanent status before the Authority, as on the date
of seeking permanent status, the respondents are already permanent workmen
under the Corporation.
9. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that though the
Corporation is a company registered under the Companies Act and is required to
follow the regulations with regard to recruitment including communal
reservation, however, it is a Government organisation and any appointment can
be made only against a sanctioned post, borne out of a cadre by following the
due process of recruitment and communal reservation and imposing the
provisions of Act, 1981 would not be applicable to the Corporation.
10. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that though the
Corporation would be amenable to the provisions of Act, 1981, however, the
Corporation being a State Corporation, the provisions of the Constitution of India
would prevail over the State enactments and, therefore, necessarily, the
Corporation is bound to follow communal reservation as provided in the
Constitution. Though the Corporation can follow certain procedures to fill up the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.7191/2024, etc. Batch
vacant posts as per its regulations, however, any recruitment can only be against
a sanctioned post and cannot be otherwise as the provisions of Act, 1981 should
be read in a manner that it does not violate the provisions of the Constitution.
Even if the Corporation would fall within the contours of the definition of
establishment as defined u/s 1 (3) of Act, 1981, the said Act would not be
applicable to the Corporation. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision
in Ashwani Kumar & Ors. – Vs – State of Bihar & Ors. (1996 (1) LLN 38) which
view has been upheld in the decision in Uma Rani – Vs – Registrar of Co-
operative Societies (2004 (7) SCC 112).
11. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the
respondents were inducted temporarily on daily wage basis so as to avoid
inconvenience to the general public who use public transport due to absenteeism
of employees and other factors, which is due to the ban on recruitment passed
by the Government under G.O. No.463 dated 23.11.2001. It is the further
submission of the learned counsel that the respondents were absorbed in the
cadre post and their services were regularised upon completion of 240 days
based on the terms of the settlement u/s 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.7191/2024, etc. Batch
agreed between the Unions and the Corporation and their services were
regularised from the year 2006 onwards.
12. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that certain other
persons, who were also engaged along with the respondents had gone before the
Authority and had sought for permanent status, which was considered and order
passed on 31.3.2005, which is prior to the entering into settlement dated
31.08.2005 by the Union and the Corporation. Therefore, not only the said
decision would not be applicable to the respondents, but also the fact that the
respondents have been regularised pursuant to the entering into settlement and,
therefore, they cannot seek permanent status for the period prior to the
settlement, as the regularisation itself is only based on the settlement.
13. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the earlier writ
petition having been withdrawn by the respondents with liberty to move the
authority claiming permanent status is grossly impermissible when the
regularisation granted to the respondents is on the basis of the settlement and,
therefore, the respondents go beyond the terms of the settlement to claim any
other benefit, as they are guided by the settlement.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.7191/2024, etc. Batch
14. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the
respondents having acquiesced the regularisation on the basis of the settlement
cannot now turn back and claim for permanent status, that too after a long delay
of about 20 years and the said claim is hit by delay and laches and their prayer
cannot be countenanced. Though the respondents rely on the decision in W.A.
No.2985/2003, etc. Batch cases to contend that their case also stands on a similar
footing, however, the same cannot be pressed into service as the respondents
have not spelt out any reason which had occasioned the delay and the delay is
fatal to the case of the respondents.
15. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel placed
reliance on the following decisions :-
i) Oil & Natural Gas Corporation – Vs – Krishan Gopal & Ors.
(2021 (18) SCC 707);
ii) State of Maharashtra & Anr. – Vs – R.S. Bhonde & Ors.
(2005 (6) SCC 751);
iii) State of Rajasthan & Ors. – Vs – Daya Lal & Ors. (2011 (2)
SCC 429);
iv) G.Gnanajothi – Vs – The Superintending Engineer,
Tiruvannamalai 9W.A. No.2055/2021 – Dated –
27.02.2023);
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.7191/2024, etc. Batch
v) The Management, rep. By its Managing Director, TNSTC –
Vs – A.Kandasamy & Ors. (W.A. Nos.681/2012, etc. –
Dated 02.02.2018);
vi) A.Jabeer Hussain & Ors. – Vs – TNSCT (Coimbatore) Ltd. &
anr. (Rev. Appln. No.s205/2018, etc. – Dated 21.01.2025);
vii) D.Saravanan – Vs – The Management, MTC (W.A.
No.1749/2018 – Dated 14.08.2018);
viii) The Managing Director, TNSTC (Salem) Ltd. – Vs –
P.Anbuchezian (W.A. No.189/2019 – Dated 25.01.2019);
ix) The Management, TNSTC (Villupuram) Ltd. – Vs – The
Inspector of Labour & Ors. (W.A. No.962/2021 – Dated
25.01.2023);
x) The Managing Director, TNSTC (Coimbatore) Ltd. – Vs –
The Inspector of Labour & Ors. (W.A. Nos.362/2022, etc. –
Dated 03.08.2023);
xi) The Superintending Engineer, Erode Electricity Distribution
Circle – Vs – The Inspector of Labour & Ors. (2022 SCC
OnLine Mad 1003);
xii) Selvaraju – Vs – The Superintending Engineer, Namakkal
Electricity Distribution Circle (W.A. No.273 & 275/2020 –
Dated 20.01.2023);
xiii) The Superintending Engineer, Tiruvannamalai Electricity
Distribution Circle – Vs – The Inspector of Labour & Ors.
(W.P. No.33635/2016 – Dated 24.07.2023);
xiv) The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Chennai – Vs –
The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement),
Kancheepuram & Anr. (W.P. Nos.1366/2024, etc. – Dated
12.03.2024);
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.7191/2024, etc. Batch
xv) Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board &
Ors. – Vs – T.T.Murali Babu (2014 (4) SCC 108);
xvi) Prabhakar – Vs – Joint Director, Sericulture Dept. & Anr.
(2015 (15) SCC 1);
xvii) L.Justine – Vs – Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Ors.
(2003 (1) LLN 315);
xviii) A.Umarani – Vs – Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Ors.
(2004 (7) SCC 112);
xix) M.P.Electricity Board – Vs – Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246);
xx) Jodhpur VidyutVitran Nigam Ltd. – Vs – Nanu Ram (2006
(12) SCC 494);
xxi) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. – Vs – Ashok
Ranghba Ambre (2008 (2) SCC 717);
xxii) Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. – Vs – Workmen,
Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2007 (1) SCC 408);
and
xxiii) The Managing Director, TNSTC Madurai Ltd. & Anr. – Vs
O.Veeraiyya & Ors. (W.A. (MD) Nos.442/2025, etc. – Dated
20.08.2025)
16. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents
submitted that the pivotal submission with regard to delay and acquiescence are
all matters, which are to be tested based on the evidence before the Authority
and the respondents cannot be precluded to canvass their plea for permanency
even at the inception. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.7191/2024, etc. Batch
that the question of limitation is not applicable to Act, 1981, as there is no
prescription of any period of limitation unlike the other workmen friendly
statutes.
17. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that upon an
workman completing 480 days of continuous service within 24 calendar months,
he shall be made permanent notwithstanding anything contained in any law and
the Corporation being an establishment within the meaning of Section 1 (3) of
Act, 1981, cannot try to wriggle out of the same by pleading constitutional
embargo. Further, no worthwhile ground has been raised to show any prejudice
has been caused to the Corporation merely on account of the respondents having
approached the Authority in the year 2023.
18. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that it has
been the consistent ratio that the issue of delay cannot be a ground to deny
benefits to the workmen and that the settlement entered contrary to the
provisions of Act, 1981 cannot be pressed into service. It is the further
submission of the learned senior counsel that the ban on any new post, imposed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.7191/2024, etc. Batch
vide G.O. Ms. No.212 dated 29.11.2001 cannot be taken into account for the
purpose of granting permanent status to the respondents.
19. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that the main
reason for withdrawal of the earlier writ petition in W.P. No.5303 of 2021, etc.
Batch was on the ground that a plea of availability of alternative remedy was
raised by the Corporation, which led to the respondents withdrawing the said
petition with liberty to approach the Authority, which was acceded to by the
Court. Therefore, once the alternative remedy was pleaded by the Corporation in
the earlier round, it cannot now come before the Court and claim that the earlier
writ petition was withdrawn, as it was only on the insistence of the Corporation
on the availability of alternative remedy and not at the behest of the
respondents.
20. In fine, it is the submission of the learned senior counsel that the
issues raised by the Corporation with regard to delay and laches, applicability of
G.O. No.463 dated 23.11.2001 and whether it would override Section 3 of Act,
1981 and whether the acceptance of appointment during the year 2006 would
amount to acquiescence are all facts and law, which are to be decided by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.7191/2024, etc. Batch
Authority and not in the present writ petition and, therefore, it is pleaded that
this Court may dismiss the writ petition and permit the parties to raise all
contentions on the aforesaid aspect before the Authority.
21. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned senior counsel for the
respondents placed reliance on the following decisions :-
i) The Management, K.1570, Amaravathi Cooperative Sugar
Mill Ltd. – Vs – A.Josep Selvaraj & Anr. (W.A. No.569/2022
– Dated 17.3.2022);
ii) R.Lakshmi – Vs – The Chief Engineer (Personnel), TNEB,
Chennai & Anr. (2012 SCC OnLine Mad 2941);
iii) The Management, TNSTC (Villupuram) Ltd. – Vs – The
Inspector of Labour & Ors. (W.P. 1302/2018 – Dated
01.10.2020);
iv) The Management, TNSTC (Villupuram) Ltd. – Vs – The
Inspector of Labour & Ors. (W.A. No.962/2021 – Dated
25.01.2023);
v) The General Manager, Erode District Cooperative Milk
Producers Union & Ors. – Vs – The Presiding Officer, Labour
Court, Salem & Ors. (W.A. Nos.1289/2022, etc. – Dated :
09.03.2023);
vi) The Superintending Engineer , Kadamparai Generation
Circle, TNEB Minparai – Vs – M.Murugan & Ors. (W.A.
Nos.1696/2021, etc. – Dated 31.10.2023);
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.7191/2024, etc. Batch
vii) V.Sundararaju – Vs – The Managing Director, TNSTC
(Salem Division – 1) Ltd. & Anr. (W.P. Nos.18498/2020, etc.
– Dated 26.02.2024);
viii) Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Ltd. – Vs – Tamil
Nadu Medical Services Corporation Employees Welfare
Union & anr. (2024 SCC OnLine SC 982);
ix) The Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd. Coimbatore Division –
Vs – Shanmugam (Decd.) & Anr. (W.A. Nos.2871 &
2872/2018 – Dated 30.09.2019);
x) Madurai Corporation, Madurai, rep. By its Commissioner –
Vs – The Inspector of Labour, Madurai & Ors. (W.A. (MD)
Nos.1163/2016 etc. – Dated 22.04.2022);
xi) Jaggo – Vs – Union of India & Ors. (2024 SCC OnLine SC
3826);
xii) The General Manager (Administration) TNSTC,
Kumbakonam Ltd. – Vs – The Inspector cum Assistant
Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement), Thanjavur & Ors.
(W.A. (MD) Nos.1594 to 1599/2024 – Dated 19.09.2024);
xiii) Ajaib Singh – Vs – Sirhind Cooperative Marketing cum
Processing Service Society Ltd. & Anr. (1999 (6) SCC 82);
xiv) Ushaben Joshi – Vs – Union of India & Ors. (SLP (Civil)
No.6427/2019 – Dated - 02.08.2024);
xv) Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. – Vs – Brajrajnagar Coal Mines
Workers’ Union (C.A. Nos.4092-4093/2024 – Dated
12.03.2024); and
xvi) Shripal & Anr. – Vs – Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (2025 SCC
OnLine SC 221)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.7191/2024, etc. Batch
22. This Court gave its careful consideration to the submissions advanced
by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials
available on record.
23. The fact that Corporation is an establishment falling with the definition
of Section 1 (3) of Act, 1981 has already been settled in a catena of decisions and,
therefore, the said submission on behalf of the Corporation does not merit
acceptance and, therefore, the proceedings, if any, initiated against the
Corporation before the Authority cannot be said to be not maintainable.
24. The main ground on which the Corporation canvasses its plea that
permanency sought for by the respondents cannot be dealt with by the Authority
is that the permanency of the respondents is based on the settlement arrived at
u/s 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act and only upon the respondents
completing 240 days, their services were made permanent on the basis of the
terms agreed in the 12 (3) settlement. Further, without prejudice to the above
contention, the permanency was granted in the year 2006, which was sought to
be challenged only in the year 2023 and the delay in filing the petition is fatal to
the case of the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.7191/2024, etc. Batch
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 on
temporary basis is not spelt out. However, the issue is not on the continuity;
rather, it is on the plea that the respondents were considered for permanency on
completion of 240 days of service on the basis of the 12 (3) settlement entered
into between the Unions and the Corporation and, accordingly, they were made
permanent in service and such service was regularised in the year 2006.
27. It is not disputed by the respondents that they were made permanent
on absorption and, thereafter, regularised in the service of the Corporation on
and from the year 2006 and that the said absorption and regularisation and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.7191/2024, etc. Batch
permanency was on the basis of the settlement entered into between the Unions
and the Corporation on 31.8.2005. Therefore, the whole process of permanency
of the respondents is guided by the terms of the settlement, but for which their
status would have remained temporary, in which case, the respondents could
have had the benefit of knocking on the doors of the Authority seeking
permanency. However, prior to the entering into settlement, the respondents
had not initiated any proceedings claiming permanency before the Authority;
rather, even immediately after the settlement, the respondents have not initiated
any claim for permanency; rather after becoming permanent and holding the
post for almost a decade and a half, the respondents have raked up the claim for
permanency.
28. It is to be noted that once permanency has been granted based on the
settlement entered into u/s 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, to which the
respondents are party through the Union, the respondents cannot turn back and
seek for permanency from a previous date as on the crucial date, viz., the date of
claiming permanency, the respondents were already permanent workmen on the
rolls of the Corporation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.7191/2024, etc. Batch
29. The need for the enactment of Act, 1981, is spelt out through the
Objects and Reasons for such enactment and it would be trite to refer to the said
Objects and Reasons and the same is quoted hereunder :-
“Many workers in industrial establishments are being kept
under temporary rules and on that pretext are being denied of
various statutory as well as non-statutory benefits which are
given to permanent workers. Mainly, in many establishments
non-permanent workers are given consolidated wages which
are far below the occupational wages and do not carry the
benefit of dearness allowance paid to permanent employees.
Similarly they are denied various other benefits like payment
of festival, cyclone and marriage advances, payment of ex-
gratia over and above the statutory bonus, supply of uniforms
and tea, preference for the dependants of the employees in
the matter of employment, etc. In order to curb various unfair
labour practices and following the decision at the 25th
meeting of the State Labour Advisory Board the Government
have decided to under-take a special legislation to confer
permanent status to the workers in various industrial
establishments who have put in a service for a period of four
hundred and eighty days in a period of twenty-four calendar
months in such industrial establishments.”
30. Even a bare perusal of the objects and reasons for enacting Act, 1981
would reveal that the denial of various statutory as well as non-statutory benefits
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.7191/2024, etc. Batch
which were given to permanent workers and payment of consolidated wages far
below the occupational wages was the guiding factor in enacting Act, 1981.
Therefore, to curb unfair labour practices of such the nature, which acts in
detriment to the workmen in getting proper wages, Act, 1981 was enacted which
gives the benefit to workers by making them permanent on their completing the
period specified in the said enactment. However, through the settlement, the
respondents have been made permanent from the year 2006 on the terms
mutually agreed to between the Unions and the Corporation.
31. When the respondents have already been made permanent on the
rolls of the Corporation on the date when the application before the Authority
was laid, could Act, 1981 be pressed into service by the respondents to claim
permanency for a period anterior in point of time to their being made permanent
is a question that falls for consideration.
32. It is to be pointed out that the purpose of enactment of Act, 1981, is
only for benefitting the workmen from being made permanent so as to enable
them enjoy the fruits of their labour in the form of the benefits that would accrue
to them in a permanent position. Once the workmen are made permanent in a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.7191/2024, etc. Batch
post, the only course open to such workmen, if they are otherwise aggrieved by
the fixation of the date of permanency is to approach the appropriate forum by
challenging the said order fixing an unilateral date and the workmen cannot
approach the Authority seeking permanency from a date anterior in point of
time. However, where the permanency is on the basis of a settlement, which has
been accepted by the workmen as well, the said consensus would definitely act
as a bar for the workmen to seek for permanency for an anterior period of time,
as permitting the workmen to interminably drag the issue of permanency is
definitely not the purpose of the Act. The Act, though acts as a shield for the
workmen from being victimized by the employer by not making them permanent,
but it is not intended to be used to derive undue benefit of retrospective
regularisation from the employer, once the benefit, which is sought to be
conferred through the Act has been conferred on consensus between the parties.
33. In the present case, the grievance of the respondents have been
ventilated through the Unions and the settlement had been entered into
between the Unions and the Corporation, whereby, the respondents have been
conferred with permanency. When the Unions have been entrusted with the
task of obtaining permanency by the respondents and on negotiation, the Unions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.7191/2024, etc. Batch
have accepted the offer of permanency granted by the Corporation, the
respondents are bound by the terms of settlement and they cannot go back and
claim permanency in the form of retrospective regularisation from an anterior
date merely because certain other individuals have been granted permanency.
34. Further, it is to be pointed out that the said individuals, who have been
granted permanency have knocked on the doors of the Authority even before the
settlement had been entered into between the Unions and the Corporation and
an order had come to be passed on 31.03.2005, which is prior to the entering
into settlement between the Unions and the Corporation. Therefore, on that
premise, this Court, through the learned single Judge as also in appeal preferred
by the Corporation have not disturbed the order of the Authority and have
directed the Corporation to grant permanent status as per the order of the
Authority. The said decision cannot be pressed into service by the respondents
to claim equivalent treatment as the respondents and the other persons, who
have obtained orders from the Authority stand on different footing and both the
cases are not identical. Therefore, the reliance placed on the said decision by the
respondents for seeking grant of permanency cannot be countenanced.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.7191/2024, etc. Batch
35. Further, it is to be pointed out that permanency had been granted to
the respondents on the basis of the settlement entered into on 31.08.2005 and
the respondents have been made permanent in the year 2006. Yet, without
taking any steps, if at all the respondents were aggrieved, the respondents
remained silent and had come before this Court through W.P. No.5503/2021,
etc., Batch, which was later withdrawn by them on the issue of availability of
alternative remedy to approach the Authority. May be, the Corporation had
pleaded the issue of alternative remedy and the learned single Judge had
accepted the said contention and had dismissed the writ petition with liberty to
the respondents to approach the Authority vide order dated 11.12.2023 leaving
all the contentious issues open for deliberation. However, the fact remains that
even at that point of time, almost a decade and a half had passed wherein the
respondents have accepted the permanency granted to them in the year 2006
and had kept silent without taking any steps. If really they were aggrieved by the
said permanency not having been granted from a date anterior in point of time,
the respondents ought to have knocked the doors of the appropriate forum.
Having kept silent, after obtainment of orders from the Authority by some other
persons, which order was prior to the date of settlement and not applicable to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.7191/2024, etc. Batch
the case of the respondents, seeking a similar relief on the basis of the said order
is grossly impermissible.
36. As aforesaid, the order obtained by the other persons was in no way
connected to the settlement and it stood separate, whereas the respondents
seek to claim permanency on the basis of the aforesaid order, but on the said
date, the respondents have already been made permanent on the basis of
settlement arrived at between the Unions and the Corporation. Therefore, the
said order passed in the other case would not in any manner further the case of
the respondents in their claim for permanency.
37. Be that as it may. After obtaining permanent status in the year 2006,
the respondents have not taken any steps for seeking permanency anterior in
point of time, but had come before the Court after about 17 years seeking
permanency, which writ petition also they withdrew for going before the
Authority. Though liberty was granted for moving the Authority, the question
that stares writ large on the respondents is the delay in taking the said step.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.7191/2024, etc. Batch
38. True it is that Act, 1981 does not impose any embargo or fetters by
fixing any period of limitation for moving the plea for seeking permanent status.
However, it should not be lost sight of that even if no limitation is fixed,
necessarily when the respondents have been made permanent even in the year
2006 and if really they felt aggrieved that they should have been granted
permanency even prior to 2006, then the respondents should have approached
the Authority at the earliest point of time. However, the respondents kept silent
and had approached this Court about 17 years after they have been made
permanent. Further, they seek the benefit on the basis of the order passed in
respect of other persons dated 31.3.2005, yet, they were granted permanency on
the basis of the settlement dated 31.08.2005 and they had not questioned the
said permanency by pointing out to the order obtained by the other persons and
had kept silent for more than a decade and a half before taking action in the
matter.
39. Though there is no period of limitation prescribed under Act, 1981, still
prudence warrants this Court to find out the reason for such a long delay on the
part of the respondents to approach this Court. Though the delay cannot be put
against the respondents, but definitely the bona fides of the respondents could
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.7191/2024, etc. Batch
be tested on the basis of the reasons submitted for the delay. If really the
respondents were basing their case on the orders passed in respect of other
workmen, it is to be pointed out that the said order was passed on 31.3.2005,
which is much prior to the date of the settlement on 31.8.2005. Even otherwise,
the respondents, if pressing their claim on the basis of the order dated 31.3.2005,
ought to have filed the application before the Authority at the earliest point of
time upon their permanency in the year 2006 by claiming that they should have
been granted permanency even from a date anterior in point of time by relying
on the order dated 31.3.2005. However, the respondents having kept silent for
17 long years, though there being no period of limitation prescribed, the
respondents are bound to establish their bona fides in making the claim for
permanency, which they have miserably failed. It could very safely be held that
the respondents have not come to the Court with clean hands by expressing the
reason for the delay and the said act clearly casts a shadow of doubt in the mind
of this Court with regard to act of the respondents.
40. Many decisions have been relied on by the respondents to submit that
delay in seeking permanency cannot be treated as fatal as no limitation is
prescribed under Act, 1981 and, therefore, the stand of the Corporation that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.7191/2024, etc. Batch
delay and laches vitiates the case of the respondents. There could be no quarrel
with the said proposition of law, as it has been time tested that delay in seeking
permanency cannot be a ground to oust the claim of a workman for grant of
permanent status as evidenced through the aforesaid decisions relied on.
However, in the present case, it is not a question of delay alone which forms the
basis for negativing the claim for permanency. The whole case lingers on the
settlement entered into on behalf of the workmen, including the respondents by
the Union with the Corporation in and by which permanency was granted. Once
the respondents got the permanency which they sought for through the
settlement, having accepted the date on which they would be deemed to be
permanent employees of the Corporation, the respondents cannot at a later date
turn back and claim for permanency from a date anterior to the said date on
which they have been granted permanency. If such a situation is allowed to
ripen, then there would be no end to such litigations, as any workmen, even after
obtaining permanency, could drag the employer to the Authority and seek for
permanency from an anterior date. Definitely that is not the intention with
which Act, 1981 was enacted. When the respondents with open eyes accepted
the date from which they would be taken to be permanent under the settlement,
they are bound by the terms of the settlement and Act, 1981 cannot be pressed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.7191/2024, etc. Batch
into service at a later point of time, that too, after a decade and a half, which
delay definitely needs an explanation, as otherwise granting such a relief would
open a Pandora’s Box for other persons to make such claims. Therefore, bona
fides need to be tested though delay alone may not be is fatal to raising such a
claim.
41. Further, as already pointed out above, the respondents have
acquiesced the settlement entered into by accepting the grant of permanency
from the year 2006 without any demur and such being the case, once the
respondents have approved the settlement and accepted it, then they are bound
by the terms of the settlement, which has been mutually agreed between the
Unions on behalf of the workmen and the Corporation and they cannot go back
on the terms of the said settlement, merely because Act, 1981, could be invoked
by the respondents at any point of time at their convenience. Therefore, the
claim of the respondents that the delay and the period of limitation in the light of
the provisions of Act, 1981 cannot be put against them and their approval would
not bar their claim for permanency from an anterior point of time from the one
accepted in the settlement cannot be countenanced and accepted and definitely
the same has to fail.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.7191/2024, etc. Batch
42. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds no merit in the claim for
permanency, sought for by the respondents by filing applications before the
Authority, more especially by relying upon the orders passed by this Court vide
order dated 25.01.2019 with regard to certain other workmen, whose cases are
covered in W.A. No.189/2019, as the facts in the said case stands on a different
footing and the same cannot be pressed into service in the present case.
43. Accordingly, these writ petitions filed by the Corporation are allowed
by forbearing the Authority from proceeding with the proceedings impugned
herein, viz., proceedings No.Tha.Na.Tho.Nee. (Pa.Nee.) Sa.Va. No.31/2023.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
10.04.2026
Index : Yes / No
GLN
Note to Registry :
Registry is directed to incorporate all the cause title
along with the prayer in the drafted order while issuing
order copy to the parties.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.7191/2024, etc. Batch
To
1. The General Manager
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Salem) Ltd.
Salem Division – 1
No.12, Ramakrishnan Road
Salem 636 007.
2. The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Salem) Ltd.
Salem Division – 1
No.12, Ramakrishnan Road
Salem 636 007.
3. The Assistant Commissioner of
Labour (Enforcement)
Authority under the Tamil Nadu
Industrial Establishments
(Conferment of Permanent Status
To Workmen) Act, 1981, Salem – 8.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.7191/2024, etc. Batch
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
GLN
PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN
W.P. NOS. 7191 OF 2024, etc.
Pronounced on
10.04.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.7191/2024, etc. Batch
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
