Absence of a sanctioned staffing pattern does not preclude regularisation where perennial work and vacancies exist.

The Petitioners, employed as clerks and peons for over ten years by the Respondent Bank, filed complaints alleging unfair labour practices under Items 5, 6, 9, and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971.

They were appointed against vacant posts (approx. 700 vacancies due to retirements since 2005) and performed perennial work but were kept on temporary status with consolidated wages (Rs. 6000–9000), denied benefits like DA, HRA, and leave available to permanent staff.

The Industrial Court, Nashik, dismissed their complaints on May 20, 2022, solely on the ground that the State Government had not yet sanctioned the Bank's proposed staffing pattern.

Whether the continuous engagement of employees on a temporary basis for perennial work despite the existence of vacancies constitutes an unfair labour practice under Items 5 and 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act.

Whether the absence of a Government-sanctioned staffing pattern or advisory circulars from NABARD legally precludes a Co-operative Bank from granting permanency to long-serving employees.

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

It relied on the Supreme Court's precedent in *Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Casteribe Rajya P. Parivahan Kamgar Sanghatana*, which held that Industrial Courts have the power to order permanency where unfair labour practices are proved.

The Court interpreted Section 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act regarding the State’s power to issue binding directions.

It interpreted Section 35(6) of the Banking Regulation Act regarding NABARD’s supervisory but advisory role.

The Court found that the Bank’s own admissions—that the work was perennial, vacancies existed, and the Petitioners were qualified—established the factual basis for unfair labour practices.

The Court rejected the Bank's reliance on the "non-sanctioned staffing pattern" because the Respondent failed to produce any mandatory statutory order under Section 79A of the MCS Act that prohibited such appointments; a mere lack of formal approval is not a legal bar to regularisation when the employer's conduct is exploitative.

Regarding NABARD, the Court clarified that its communications are advisory guidelines for financial health and do not override statutory service laws or the Industrial Court's jurisdiction to remedy unfair labour practices.

Applying the *Casteribe* principle, the Court reasoned that continuing employees for over a decade on fixed wages for permanent work, while denying them regular benefits, squarely falls under Item 6 of Schedule IV.

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

The Court directed the Bank to undertake a regularisation exercise for the Petitioners against vacant posts within twelve weeks, verifying individual eligibility and qualifications.

Eligible Petitioners are granted permanency with continuity of service and prospective regular pay scales.

The Court further ordered that the Petitioners' services shall not be terminated or altered to their prejudice pending the completion of this exercise.