Absence of Sanctioned Staffing Pattern Cannot Justify Denial of Permanency Where Perennial Vacancies and Continuous Service Exist

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

Despite performing work of a permanent and perennial nature against vacant posts (confirmed by the reduction of ~700 staff since 2005), they were kept on temporary status with consolidated wages (Rs. 6000–9000) and denied benefits like dearness allowance, leave, and promotions available to permanent staff

The Bank admitted the perennial nature of the work and the shortage of staff but argued that permanency could not be granted because the State Government had not yet sanctioned the new staffing pattern for 1934 posts

The Industrial Court, Nashik, dismissed the complaints on May 20, 2022, solely due to the lack of an approved staffing pattern

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

It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in *Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth v. Nashik Zilla Sheth Kamgar Union (Casteribe)*, establishing that Industrial Courts can grant permanency where unfair labour practices are proved

It interpreted Section 35(6) of the Banking Regulation Act, noting it confers supervisory/inspection powers on NABARD but not the power to frame binding service rules

Further, Section 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act was cited as the source of the State’s power to issue binding directions, but such directions must be in writing to have statutory force

The Court found that the Bank’s admissions regarding the perennial nature of work, the existence of vacancies, and the long-term continuous service of the petitioners established a *prima facie* case of unfair labour practices

The Court rejected the Bank's reliance on NABARD’s communications, ruling they were purely advisory and did not override the High Court's or Industrial Court's jurisdiction under labour laws

Regarding the "staffing pattern," the Court observed that the Respondent failed to produce any specific statutory order under Section 79A of the MCS Act that prohibited the Bank from making permanent appointments; thus, a mere administrative delay in sanctioning a proposal could not justify the deprivation of legal rights

The Court concluded that keeping employees on fixed wages while regular staff enjoyed full benefits for identical work constituted clear discrimination under Item 5

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

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

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

The Court also prohibited the termination of the petitioners pending this exercise and rejected the Bank's oral request for a stay