Absence of Government-sanctioned staffing pattern does not justify denying permanency for perennial work under MRTU & PULP Act.

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

They contended that despite being appointed against vacant posts and performing perennial work, they were denied permanency and regular benefits, receiving only consolidated wages.

The Bank admitted that the work was perennial and that nearly 700 permanent posts had become vacant since 2005.

However, the Bank argued it could not regularize the petitioners because a new "staffing pattern" submitted to the State Government had not yet received formal approval.

The Industrial Court, Nashik, dismissed the complaints on May 20, 2022, solely on the ground of the lack of a sanctioned staffing pattern.

The petitioners challenged this dismissal via writ petitions under Article 227.

The Court applied Items 5 (discrimination) and 6 (prolonged temporary status to deny permanency) of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.

It interpreted Section 35(6) of the Banking Regulation Act, clarifying that NABARD’s supervisory powers do not equate to the authority to frame binding service rules or override State statutory powers.

The Court further applied 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.

Finally, it relied on the principles from Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth v. Nashik Zilla Sheth Kamgar Union (Casteribe), establishing that Industrial Courts can grant permanency where unfair labour practices are proved and vacancies exist.

The Court found that the Bank’s primary defense—the lack of a sanctioned staffing pattern—was legally hollow because the Bank failed to produce any written order under Section 79A of the Co-operative Societies Act that specifically prohibited them from filling vacancies.

The Court reasoned that statutory prohibitions cannot be presumed and must be evidenced by specific directives.

Furthermore, the Court determined that NABARD’s communications were merely "suggestive" guidelines for financial prudence and did not constitute a legal bar to regularizing staff.

On facts, the Court emphasized the Bank’s own admissions: the work was perennial, the petitioners were qualified, the service was uninterrupted (evidenced by PF deductions), and a massive manpower shortage existed.

By keeping the petitioners on consolidated wages while permanent staff received full benefits for the same work, the Bank engaged in an "unfair labour practice" as defined in Casteribe.

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: (i) undertake a regularisation exercise for the petitioners against vacant posts within 12 weeks; (ii) grant permanency with continuity of service to eligible candidates; (iii) provide prospective pay and service benefits in the regular pay scale; and (iv) refrain from terminating the petitioners or altering their service conditions during this process.

Request for a stay on the judgment was rejected.