1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.3086 of 2011 & M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2011 1.P.Raja 2.S.Saravanakumar 3.S.Mohan Raj 4.I.Gurumoorthy 5.G.Venkatesan 6.O.Veeraiya 7.O.Pandy 8.M.Nallu Thevan 9.S.Rajappan 10.A.Arumugam 11.M.Soundarapandian 12.G.Muniasamy 13.S.Muthuramalingam 14.C.Muthukumar 15.C.Lakshmanan 16.P.Perumal 17.M.Muthuraman 18.K.Murugan 19.N.Thirumaran 20.R.Pandy 21.I.Sekaran 22.U.Muthuraman 23.R.Sakthivel 24.C.Senthilnathan 25.M.Paramasivam 26.M.S.Krishnan 27.K.Muthukumar 28.M.Jeyakodi 29.R.Sivaraman 30.T.Chelladurai .. Petitioners Vs. 1.The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Bye Pass Road,Madurai. 2.The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Madurai Region, Rep. by its General Manager, Bye Pass Road,Madurai. 3.The Labour Officer, Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, K.K.Nagar,Madurai-20. ... Respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of declaration declaring that the action of the second respondent in giving permanency to the post of the petitioners 1 to 30 only w.e.f 01.09.2005 instead of giving permanency to their posts from the date of completion of 240 days of service as per the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in proceedings No.56(1)/05 dated 08.06.2005 is illegal and consequently to direct the second respondent to make their posts permanent on completion of 240 days of service as per the proceedings No.56(1)/05 dated 08.06.2005 of the 3rd respondent. For Petitioner :M/s.Kara Associates For Respondents :Mr.TS.MD.Mohideen for R3 Additional Government Pleader Mr.S.Baskaran for R1 & R2 ORDER The petitioners herein were the employees of State owned transport corporation and their service were regularised on 01.09.2005 pursuant to the settlement reached under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act), dated 31.08.2005. 2.The petitioners have got their service regularised with effect from 01.09.2005. They have filed the present writ petitions after a period of 6 years stating that they should be regularised from the date on which they have completed 240 days as per the proceedings of the third respondent, Labour officer, Madurai. 2. When the writ petition came on 17.03.2011, notice regarding admission was ordered. In the application for interim direction, no relief was granted. 3. On notice from this Court, the respondents 1 and 2 have filed their counter dated 12.10.2011 together with the supporting documents in the form of typed set. A copy of the 12(3) settlement reached between the petitioners' union and the management dated 31.08.2005 has also been produced. 4. In paragraph 4(b) of 12 (3) settlement it was agreed as a special condition that 1375 daily rated workers will be made permanent with effect from 01.09.2005. Then the existing 2122 casual workers will be brought under daily paid system with effect from 01.09.2005 and after completion of 240 days from that day, they will be made permanent. Therefore, the petitioners cannot make their case on the basis of advice rendered by the Labour Officer, wherein pursuant to a dispute, he had given certain advice. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 5. It must be noted that settlement under Section 13(2) of the Act came be signed before the Joint Commissioner of Labour at Chennai on 31.08.2005. Therefore, the earlier advice given by the Subordinate Officer can only be an advice and not binding on the parties. All the trade unions are signatories to the settlement and in the absence of the settlement being held to be invalid, the petitioners cannot file writ petition based on the advice of the third respondent. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 and 2, in paragraph 3 it was averred as follows:- "Thereafter a wage settlement talks was made and negotiation between the recognized Trade Unions and Management was held on 21.07.2005, 22.07.2005, 29.07.2005, 30.07.2005, 08.08.2005, 09.08.2005 and finally a settlement was arrived between the representatives of Trade Unions and Management on 31.08.2005 by the Memorandum of Settlement duly signed by all parties. In that settlement talks the demand raised by the petitioners were discussed and arrived mutually, agreeing to regularize the services of the 1375 daily paid employees including the petitioners with effect from 01.09.2005 and also to give daily paid order to 2172 persons. Based on the terms under the clause 4(M) of the settlement, this respondent corporation has issued confirmation orders to all the workers and it was also implied to the workers including the petitioners under a Settlement made u/s 12 (3) of I.D. Act,1947. Hence the petitioners cannot clam any benefit under writ proceedings for the benefits already availed in the settlement made u/s 12(3) of I.D.Act-1947" 7. In the light of the above, no case is made out to entertain the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 To 1.The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Bye Pass Road, Madurai. 2.The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Madurai Region, Rep. by its General Manager, Bye Pass Road, Madurai. 3.The Labour Officer, Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, K.K.Nagar, Madurai-20 +1cc to Mr.S.Baskaran, Advocate, Sr.No.35891 +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No. 35848 Order made in W.P.(MD)No.3086 of 2011 & M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2011 14.10.2011 jikr SMA/31.10.2011/6C/4P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/