Absence of a sanctioned staffing pattern does not justify denying permanency to employees performing perennial work.

The petitioners, working as clerks and peons for over ten years at the respondent Bank, filed complaints alleging unfair labour practices under Items 5, 6, 9, and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.

They argued that despite performing perennial work against vacant posts and having PF deductions, they were kept on temporary status with consolidated wages to deny them benefits given to permanent staff.

The Bank admitted the work was perennial and that nearly 700 vacancies existed but argued it could not regularize staff because the State Government had not sanctioned its proposed staffing pattern of 1,934 posts.

The Industrial Court, Nashik, dismissed the complaints on May 20, 2022, solely on the ground that the staffing pattern lacked formal approval.

Whether the absence of a government-sanctioned staffing pattern precludes the Industrial Court from granting permanency when unfair labour practices are established.

Whether the communications/guidelines issued by NABARD regarding recruitment carry statutory force and bind the Bank's staffing decisions.

Whether the Bank's conduct of continuing qualified employees on temporary status for over a decade against admitted vacancies constitutes unfair labour practice under Items 5 and 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act.

The Court applied the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices (MRTU & PULP) Act, 1971, specifically Items 5 (discrimination) and 6 (keeping employees temporary to deny permanency) of Schedule IV.

It relied on the Supreme Court’s precedent in Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmachari Sanghatana, which holds that Industrial Courts have the power to order regularisation to rectify unfair labour practices, provided posts exist.

The Court interpreted Section 35(6) of the Banking Regulation Act, noting it grants NABARD supervisory/inspection powers but not the authority to frame binding service rules.

It further analyzed Section 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, which empowers the State to issue binding directions in public interest, noting that such directions must be in writing to have statutory force.

The Court found that the Bank’s defense—the lack of a sanctioned staffing pattern—was legally hollow because the Bank failed to produce any written prohibitory order issued by the State under Section 79A.

The Court clarified that NABARD’s communications are merely advisory and do not override the Industrial Court's statutory duty to penalize unfair labour practices.

Factually, the Bank’s own admissions proved the "why" of the violation: the work was perennial, the petitioners were qualified, vacancies exceeded 700, and yet petitioners were denied the pay scales and benefits of permanent staff.

Applying the Casteribe principle, the Court reasoned that keeping workers temporary for 10+ years while taking the benefit of their continuous service constitutes a classic case of Item 6.

The Industrial Court erred by treating the "non-sanction" of a pattern as an absolute legal bar despite no statutory prohibition being in evidence.

It held that the Bank engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 5 and 6.

The Court directed the Bank to undertake a regularisation exercise for the petitioners against available vacancies within twelve weeks, subject to eligibility verification.

Eligible petitioners must be granted permanency with continuity of service and prospective regular pay scales.

The Bank was restrained from terminating the petitioners or altering their service conditions to their prejudice pending this exercise.

The request for a stay on the judgment was rejected.