BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.03.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN AND THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE R.POORNIMA W.A(MD)No.197 of 2025 M.Arumugam ... Appellant/Petitioner .Vs. 1.The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation(Madurai)Limited, By-Pass Road, Madurai-10. 2.The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Transport Department, Fort St. George, Chennai -600 109 ... Respondents/Respondents PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act praying this Court to set aside the order of this Court made in W.P(MD)NO.18882 of 2013, dated 21.12.2021. For Appellant : Mr.L.M.Vijai Boominathan For Respondent-2 : Mr.S.Vinoth Govt. Advocate 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis JUDGMENT DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J. AND R.POORNIMA,J. The Writ Appeal is directed against the order of this Court made in W.P(MD)NO.18882 of 2013, dated 21.12.2021. 2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 3.The Petitioner herein working as a Conductor in the first respondent Corporation from 1.6.1982, was terminated from serivce due to his misconduct namely, misbehaving with a passenger on 7.10.2000. He has challenged the said termination order before the Labour Court, Madurai in I.D.OP.No.43 of 2003. Pending his appeal, he along with other similarly placed persons through their Union entered into Section 18(1) settlement and got fresh appointment on condition that he will withdraw I.D.O.P.No.43 of 2003 filed by the appellant challenging the section 18(1) Settlement, dated 14.03.2007 and to declare it as illegal, invalid and in violation of the constitutional rights. 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4.The learned Single Judge vide order, dated 21.12.2021, had dismissed the Writ Petition stating that the Writ Petitioner joined as a fresh entrant on 14.3.2007 pursuant to the terms of Section Section 18(1) settlement. He also withdraw the I.D.O.P filed by him. He attained superannuation on 16.01.2017.The Writ Petition was filed in the year 2013 after a lapse of six years challenging the 18(1) Settlement which bind on the parties and acted upon does not stand the test of scrutiny. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the present Writ Appeal is filed. 5.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Transport Corporation Workers participated in the General Strike for non implementation of Section 12(3) settlement entered between the parties on 31.8.2005. Therefore the Corporation victimised all the trade union activists including the Petitioner. Subsequently, for participating in the general strike as well as on the allegation that the Writ Petitioner misbehaved with one of the passenger, disciplinary proceedings was initiated and a capital punishment of dismissal from service was imposed. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal passed with an intention to victimize the Labour Union activists, the Writ Petitioner preferred I.D.O.P.No. 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 43 of 2003 before the Labour Court and the same was pending. In the said circumstances, Section 18(1) setltement came into force. Due to economic condition, the Writ Petitioner was forced to accept the settlement though it was lop-sided, arbitrary and no prudent employee be ready to forego about 25 years of service. Therefore, on the basis of the terms of settlement, it suffers from arbitrariness. .Therefore, the same been challenged before this Court by way of Writ Petiion by collecting the details under Right to Information Act. Hence the learned counsel would submit that the delay in filing the Writ Petition cannot be a ground to dismiss the Writ Petition, which is otherwise meritorious. .The learned counsel for the appellant referred to the order passed in respect of same employees who were punished for participating in the general strike and awarded with minor punishments. 6.This Court after giving anxious consideration to the submission, found that the appellant was removed from service not only for participating in the general strike, for the specific misconduct proved in the course of disciplinary proeedings. When the Union engaged with the management and arrived at Section 18(1) settement, the Petitioner had voluntarily accepted it and joined 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis service. He had served thereafter for about 10 years. In compliance of the Section 18(1) settlement, he has also withdrawn I.D.O.P43 of 2003 filed challenging his termination order. In the said circumstances, the reasons stated for filing a Writ of Declaration after 6 years of the Section 18(1) Settlement and enjoying the benefits of the settlement, appears to be unsustainable. The learned Single Judge, has rightly pointed out that the Writ of Declaration, after enjoying the terms of Section 18(1) settlement is not maintainable and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. 7.Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. [G.J.,J.] [R.P.,J.] 03.03.2025 NCS : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No vsn To 1.The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation(Madurai)Limited, By-Pass Road, 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Madurai-10. 2.The Secretary, Transport Department, Fort St. George, Chennai -600 109 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. and R.POORNIMA ,J. vsn JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A(MD)No.197 of 2025 03.03.2025 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis