Continuous engagement in perennial work against vacant posts without sanctioned staffing patterns constitutes unfair labour practice.

The petitioners (workmen) were employed by the respondent Bank as clerks and peons for over ten years on a temporary basis with consolidated wages.

Despite performing work of a perennial nature and being appointed against vacant posts (following the depletion of nearly 700 permanent staff since 2005), they were denied permanency, regular pay scales, and benefits available to permanent employees.

The workmen filed complaints alleging unfair labour practices under Items 5, 6, 9, and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971.

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 petitioners challenged this dismissal via Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the continuous engagement of employees on a temporary basis for perennial work despite available vacancies constitutes an unfair labour practice under Items 5 and 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act.

Whether the absence of a Government-sanctioned staffing pattern or advisory circulars from NABARD legally precludes a direction for regularisation of long-serving employees.

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

It relied on the Supreme Court’s precedent in *Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth v. Nashik Zilla Sheth Kamgar Union* (Casteribe case), which establishes that Industrial Courts have the power to order permanency to erase unfair labour practices under Item 6, provided it does not violate statutory recruitment rules.

The Court also interpreted Section 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, holding that only a specific written direction from the State Government carries statutory force to restrict staffing.

Section 35(6) of the Banking Regulation Act, clarifying that NABARD’s supervisory communications are advisory and not equivalent to statutory rules.

The Court found that the Bank’s own admissions—that the work was perennial, vacancies exceeded 700, and petitioners performed duties identical to permanent staff—satisfied the factual requirements for unfair labour practice.

The Court rejected the Bank’s defense regarding the lack of a "sanctioned staffing pattern," noting that the Bank failed to produce any specific restrictive order issued under Section 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.

The Court reasoned that since the Bank continued to benefit from the petitioners' labor for over a decade while denying them equal pay and benefits (Item 5) and keeping them temporary to avoid the obligations of permanency (Item 6), the label of "temporary" was a legal fiction.

It further held that NABARD guidelines were merely suggestive and did not override the Bank’s obligation to comply with labor laws.

It held that the respondent Bank engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 5 and 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act.

The Court directed the Bank to undertake a regularisation exercise for the petitioners against vacant posts within twelve weeks, subject to eligibility verification, and grant them permanency with continuity of service and prospective regular pay scales.

The Bank was further restrained from terminating the petitioners or altering their service conditions to their prejudice until the completion of the exercise.

The request for a stay on the judgment was rejected.