Continuous engagement of temporary workers against perennial vacancies constitutes unfair labour practice despite pending staffing approval.

The petitioners were employed by the respondent Bank as clerks and peons for over ten years on a temporary basis with consolidated wages (Rs. 6000–9000)

Despite performing perennial work, having provident fund deductions, and working against vacancies created by the exit of nearly 700 permanent staff since 2005, they were denied permanency and regular benefits

The Industrial Court, Nashik, dismissed their complaints of unfair labour practices on May 20, 2022, solely on the grounds that the Bank's staffing pattern lacked formal Government approval

The petitioners challenged this before the High Court under 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 & PULP Act, 1971

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

The Court primarily applied Items 5 (discrimination) and 6 (continuing employees as temporary to deprive permanency) of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971

It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth v. Nasik Zilla Sheth Kari Kamgar Union (Casteribe principle), which empowers Industrial Courts to directs permanency where unfair labour practices are proved

The Court also interpreted Section 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act regarding the State’s power to issue binding directions

and Section 35(6) of the Banking Regulation Act regarding the nature of NABARD’s supervisory powers

The Court reasoned that the respondent Bank’s own admissions—that the work was perennial, vacancies existed, and the petitioners’ service was uninterrupted—established a prima facie case of unfair labour practice

The Court rejected the Bank's defense that it was legally restrained by the lack of a "sanctioned staffing pattern"; it noted that the Bank failed to produce any specific prohibitory order issued under Section 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act that would override the Bank’s obligation to provide fair labour conditions

Regarding NABARD's communications, the Court clarifies that Section 35(6) of the Banking Regulation Act grants supervisory and inspection powers but does not confer legislative authority to frame binding service rules that supersede provincial labour laws

Following Casteribe, the Court found that keeping qualified employees on fixed wages for over a decade while denying them benefits available to permanent peers performing identical work is a clear manipulation of employment status to deny statutory rights

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

The Court directed the respondent Bank to undertake a regularisation exercise for the petitioners against vacant posts within twelve weeks, verifying individual eligibility and qualifications

Eligible petitioners are to be granted permanency with continuity of service and prospective regular pay scales, with a mandate that their services shall not be terminated or altered to their prejudice until the exercise is complete

The oral request for a stay of the judgment was rejected