### Continuous Engagement Against Perennial Vacancies Without Sanctioned Staffing Pattern Constitutes Unfair Labour Practice

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

They sought permanency and benefits equivalent to permanent staff, asserting they were appointed against vacant posts and performed perennial work.

The respondent Bank admitted the work was perennial and that nearly 700 vacancies existed due to retirements since 2005, yet maintained the petitioners as temporary on consolidated wages.

The Industrial Court, Nashik, dismissed the complaints on May 20, 2022, solely on the ground that the State Government had not yet sanctioned the Bank's proposed staffing pattern.

Whether the continuation of employees on temporary status for over a decade despite available vacancies and perennial work constitutes an unfair labour practice under Item 6, Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act.

Whether the absence of a government-sanctioned staffing pattern under Section 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act acts as a legal bar to granting permanency.

Whether communications from NABARD regarding recruitment policies constitute binding statutory directions that override industrial law obligations.

The court applied the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices (MRTU & PULP) Act, 1971, specifically Items 5 and 6 of Schedule IV, which prohibit discriminatory treatment and the practice of keeping employees temporary for years to deny permanency.

It interpreted Section 35(6) of the Banking Regulation Act, noting it grants NABARD supervisory/inspection powers but not the authority to frame binding service regulations.

It further analyzed Section 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, which empowers the State to issue binding directions in public interest, but requires an express written order to create a legal restriction.

Finally, it relied on the Supreme Court's precedent in Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth v. Nashik Zilla Sheth Kari Kamgar Union (Casteribe case) regarding the Industrial Court's power to grant permanency to remedy unfair labour practices.

The Court found that the Bank’s own admissions—that work was perennial, vacancies exceeded 700, and petitioners performed duties identical to permanent staff—established a prima facie case of unfair labour practice.

The Court rejected the Bank's defense that it was "legally precluded" from regularizing staff due to a lack of a sanctioned staffing pattern.

It reasoned that since the Bank failed to produce any specific prohibitory order issued by the State under Section 79A of the Co-operative Societies Act, no "statutory bar" existed.

Furthermore, the Court clarified that NABARD guidelines are advisory/suggestive for institutional reform and do not possess the force of law to override the protections of the MRTU & PULP Act.

Consequently, keeping qualified individuals on consolidated wages for 10+ years while denying them scale-benefits available to permanent peers was deemed a clear violation of Items 5 and 6.

It held that the respondent Bank engaged in unfair labour practices by denying permanency despite the requirement for permanent work.

The Court directed the Bank to undertake a regularisation exercise for the petitioners against vacant posts within 12 weeks, subject to eligibility verification.

Upon regularisation, the petitioners are entitled to prospective pay scales and benefits with continuity of service.

The Bank was further restrained from terminating the petitioners or altering their service conditions during this process.

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