Absence of Statutorily Sanctioned Staffing Pattern Cannot Justify Denying Permanency for Long-Term Perennial Work.

The Petitioners, numbering over 400 across several tagged petitions, were employed as clerks and peons by the Respondent Bank on a temporary basis with consolidated wages (Rs. 6000–9000) for over ten years.

Despite performing perennial work and being appointed against vacant posts arising from a staff reduction of nearly 700 employees since 2005, they were denied regularisation and benefits available to permanent staff.

The Respondent Bank admitted the perennial nature of the work but argued that it could not grant permanency because the State Government had not yet sanctioned its proposed staffing pattern of 1934 posts.

The Industrial Court, Nashik, dismissed the Petitioners' complaints of unfair labour practices (ULP) on May 20, 2022, solely on the ground that the staffing pattern lacked official approval.

The Petitioners challenged this dismissal under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the Respondent Bank engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 5 and 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971, by continuing the Petitioners on a temporary basis to deny them permanency.

Whether the lack of a sanctioned staffing pattern or advisory guidelines from NABARD constitutes a legal bar to the regularisation of employees who have completed long years of continuous service against admitted vacancies.

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

Regarding regulatory oversight, it interpreted Section 35(6) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, holding that NABARD’s powers are supervisory/advisory and do not override statutory service conditions.

It further applied Section 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, which empowers the State to issue binding directions only through formal written orders.

Finally, it relied on the precedent in *Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth v. Nashik Zilla Sheth Majoor Union (Casteribe)* regarding the Industrial Court's power to grant permanency where ULP is established.

The Court found that the Bank’s own admissions—that the work was perennial, vacancies existed due to 700 retirements, and Petitioners were qualified—established a prima facie case for ULP under Item 6.

The Court rejected the Bank’s defense regarding the lack of a "sanctioned staffing pattern"; it noted that the Bank failed to produce any formal prohibitive order under Section 79A of the Co-operative Societies Act.

It reasoned that statutory prohibitions cannot be presumed; in the absence of a written directive from the State, the Bank was not legally restrained from regularizing staff to meet admitted operational needs.

The Court clarified that NABARD guidelines are suggestive and do not possess the force of law to override the MRTU and PULP Act.

Referring to *Casteribe*, the Court held that while regularisation shouldn't be a "backdoor entry," the Industrial Court must look beyond "temporary" labels when an employer takes the benefit of continuous service for years while denying statutory benefits.

It held that the Bank engaged in ULP under Items 5 and 6 of Schedule IV.

The Court directed the Respondent Bank to undertake an exercise within twelve weeks to regularise the Petitioners against available vacant posts, subject to eligibility verification.

Eligible Petitioners were granted permanency with continuity of service and prospective pay scales, with all monetary benefits to be cleared within sixteen weeks.

The Court further restrained the Bank from terminating or prejudicially altering the Petitioners' service conditions pending this exercise.

An oral request for a stay of the judgment was rejected.