Legalizing permanency is mandatory for long-term temporary employees performing perennial work against admitted vacant posts.

The Petitioners, employed as clerks and peons for over ten years by 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 argued that despite performing perennial work against vacant posts and having PF deductions, they were kept on temporary status with consolidated wages (Rs. 6000–9000) while permanent employees received full scales and benefits.

The Respondent-Bank admitted the perennial nature of the work and a shortage of nearly 700 staff members but contended it could not grant permanency because the State Government had not sanctioned its new staffing pattern proposal.

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

Whether the absence of a government-sanctioned staffing pattern legally precludes the grant of permanency to employees who have performed perennial work for over a decade.

Whether the respondent engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 5 and 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act by continuing employees on a temporary basis to deny them benefits of permanency.

The court primarily applied Items 5 and 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, which prohibit discrimination between workers and the practice of keeping employees temporary for years to deny them permanency.

It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth v. Nashik Zilla Sheth Kamgar Union (Casteribe), establishing that Industrial Courts can direct the removal of unfair labour practices even if it involves regularisation, provided it doesn't violate statutory recruitment remains.

The court further interpreted Section 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, which empowers the State to issue binding directions in public interest, and Section 35(6) of the Banking Regulation Act, which governs NABARD’s inspection powers.

The Court found that the Bank’s reliance on the lack of a "sanctioned staffing pattern" was legally hollow, as no specific prohibitory order under Section 79A of the Co-operative Societies Act was produced to show a restriction on appointments.

It clarified that NABARD communications are advisory guidelines for financial health and do not constitute statutory bars to service regularisation.

Factual admissions by the Bank—specifically that the work was perennial, vacancies existed due to 700 retirements, and candidates were qualified—triggered the application of Item 6 of Schedule IV.

The Court reasoned that keeping employees on consolidated wages for 10+ years while they perform the same duties as permanent staff constitutes "palpable" unfair labour practice and discrimination under Item 5.

The Industrial Court’s error lay in treating administrative procedural delays as an absolute legal bar to enforcing labour rights.

It held that the Bank engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 5 and 6.

The Court directed the Bank to undertake a regularisation exercise for the Petitioners against available vacancies within twelve weeks, subject to eligibility verification.

Eligible petitioners must be granted permanency with continuity of service and prospective regular pay scales.

The Bank was further restrained from terminating the petitioners or altering their service conditions until the exercise is complete.

Stay of the judgment was refused.