Continuous engagement against perennial vacancies without sanctioned staffing patterns 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 and PULP Act, 1971

They contended that despite performing perennial work against vacant posts and having PF deductions, they were kept on temporary status with consolidated wages (₹6000–₹9000) to deny them benefits of permanency

The Bank admitted the work was perennial and that 700 vacancies existed but argued it could not regularize staff because the State Government had not sanctioned the "staffing pattern"

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

The Court applied Item 6, Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, which prohibits employing workers as "temporaries" for years to deprive them of permanency

It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth v. Nashik Zilla Sheth Kari Kamgar Union (Casteribe), distinguishing between "backdoor entry" and the Industrial Court’s power to remedy established unfair labour practices

It further interpreted Section 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, noting that while the State can issue binding directions, such restrictions must be expressed in a written order and cannot be presumed

Finally, it clarified that Section 35(6) of the Banking Regulation Act grants NABARD supervisory/inspection powers but does not empower it to frame binding service rules or override State statutory powers

The Court found that the Bank’s defense rested on a "presumed" legal barrier

No written order under Section 79A of the Co-operative Societies Act was produced to prove that the Bank was prohibited from filling vacancies

The Court observed that NABARD’s communications were merely "suggestive" or advisory and lacked statutory force regarding staffing

Factually, the Bank admitted the work was perennial, vacancies exceeded 700, and the petitioners’ service was uninterrupted for over a decade

Applying Casteribe, the Court held that the Industrial Court erred by allowing the "temporary" label to override the reality of the employment relationship

The disparate treatment in wages and benefits between the petitioners and permanent staff performing identical duties was found to squarely meet the definition of unfair labour practices under Items 5 and 6

It held that the Bank engaged in unfair labour practices by prolonging the temporary status of the petitioners to deny them benefits

The Court directed the Bank to undertake a regularization exercise for the petitioners against available vacancies within twelve weeks, subject to eligibility and service records

It ordered that eligible petitioners be granted permanency with continuity of service and prospective regular pay scales, with monetary benefits to be paid within sixteen weeks

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