### Absence of sanctioned staffing pattern does not justify continuing temporary employment for perennial work or denying permanency.

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

Despite performing perennial work and being appointed against vacant posts (following a reduction of staff from ~1900 to ~1200 since 2005), they were continued on consolidated wages (Rs. 6000–9000) and denied benefits available to permanent staff.

The Industrial Court, Nashik, dismissed the complaints on May 20, 2022, solely on the ground that the Bank’s staffing pattern had not received formal government approval.

The Bank contended that NABARD guidelines and the absence of sanctioned posts under the Co-operative Department legally precluded them from granting permanency.

Whether the absence of a sanctioned staffing pattern by the State Government or NABARD guidelines constitutes a legal bar to the regularisation of employees under the MRTU and PULP Act.

Whether the continued engagement of employees on temporary status for over a decade for perennial work, despite available vacancies and institutional need, constitutes unfair labour practice under Items 5 and 6 of Schedule IV of the Act.

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

It relied on the precedent set in *Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmachari Sanghatana*, holding that Industrial Courts have the power to order permanency where unfair labour practices are established, provided vacancies exist.

It further interpreted Section 35(6) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and Section 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, noting that authorities' "suggestions" are advisory and binding only if issued as formal statutory directions.

The Court found that the respondent Bank admitted the work was perennial and that petitioners were working against vacancies created by retired staff.

The Bank's witness admitted petitioners were never terminated and performed duties identical to permanent employees.

The Court rejected the Bank’s reliance on NABARD’s communications, clarifying that Section 35(6) of the Banking Regulation Act concerns financial inspection and does not empower NABARD to override statutory labour protections or frame binding service conditions.

Regarding Section 79A of the Co-operative Societies Act, the Court observed that no specific written order from the State Government was produced to show a statutory prohibition on appointments; thus, a "non-sanctioned" pattern cannot be a shield for unfair labour practices.

Following *Casteribe*, the Court reasoned that while regularisation isn't automatic, the label of "temporary" used for 10+ years to deny benefits, while admittedly needing 1900+ staff, squarely meets the definition of Item 6.

It held that the Bank engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 5 and 6 by prolonging temporary status despite perennial work and vacancies.

The Court directed the respondent 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 petitioners; and (iii) pay regular scale wages prospectively.

The Bank was restrained from terminating the petitioners or altering their service conditions until the exercise is complete.

The request for a stay on the judgment was rejected.