Absence of Sanctioned Staffing Pattern Cannot Justify Denial of Permanency for Employees Performing Admitted Perennial Work

The petitioners (workmen) were appointed as clerks and peons by the respondent Bank starting around 2011–2012 and worked continuously for over ten years.

Despite performing perennial work and being appointed against vacancies created by the exit of nearly 700 permanent employees since 2005, they were kept on fixed consolidated wages (₹6000–₹9000) and denied benefits like Dearness Allowance and leave.

The petitioners filed complaints alleging unfair labour practices under Items 5, 6, 9, and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971.

The Industrial Court, Nashik, dismissed the complaints on 20 May 2022, holding that permanency could not be granted because the State Government had not yet sanctioned the Bank's proposed staffing pattern.

The petitioners challenged this dismissal via Article 227.

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

The precedent of Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth v. Nashik Zilla Sheth Majdoor Union (Casteribe case) was relied upon, which establishes that Industrial Courts have the power to direct regularisation and permanency to erase unfair labour practices, provided it does not violate statutory recruitment rules.

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.

Section 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, which empowers the State to issue binding directions in public interest, but requires a specific written order to create a legal prohibition, was examined.

The Court found that the Bank’s own admissions—that the work was perennial, the petitioners occupied vacant posts, and their service was uninterrupted—established a prima facie case of unfair labour practice under Item 6.

The Court rejected the Bank’s defense regarding the "unsanctioned staffing pattern"; it held that while Section 79A of the Co-operative Societies Act allows the State to regulate staffing, the Bank failed to produce any specific statutory order or notification that actually prohibited these appointments.

Furthermore, the Court clarified that NABARD communications are merely advisory guidelines and do not possess the statutory force required to override labour laws or the Industrial Court's jurisdiction.

By maintaining a "temporary" label for over a decade to deny benefits available to permanent staff performing identical duties, the Bank engaged in discrimination under Item 5.

It held that the Bank engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 5 and 6 by keeping the petitioners temporary despite perennial work requirements.

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

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

The Court also issued an injunction against termination or alteration of service conditions pending this exercise.

The Bank's request for a stay on the judgment was rejected.