Prolonged temporary employment against admitted perennial vacancies constitutes unfair labour practice, regardless of unsanctioned staffing patterns.

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 argued that despite performing perennial work against vacant posts and possessing requisite qualifications, they were kept on temporary status with consolidated wages (Rs. 6,000–9,000) while being denied benefits like DA, HRA, and leave available to permanent staff.

The respondent Bank admitted the perennial nature of work and a vacancy of over 700 posts but contended it could not grant permanency because the State Government had not yet sanctioned its proposed "staffing pattern".

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

1. Whether the absence of a government-sanctioned staffing pattern legally precludes a Cooperative Bank from regularizing employees who have performed perennial work for over a decade.

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

3. Whether the guidelines issued by NABARD regarding recruitment and staffing patterns have mandatory statutory force under the Banking Regulation Act.

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

It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth v. Nashik Zilla Sheth Kari Kamgar Sabha (Casteribe case), establishing that Industrial Courts can grant permanency where unfair labour practices are proved, provided it doesn't violate statutory recruitment rules.

The court also interpreted Section 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, which empowers the State to issue binding directions in public interest.

The court interpreted Section 35(6) of the Banking Regulation Act, concluding that NABARD’s supervisory powers do not equate to a power to frame binding service regulations.

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

While the Bank claimed it needed government sanction for a staffing pattern, it failed to produce any specific order under Section 79A of the Co-operative Societies Act that actually prohibited it from making appointments.

The Court noted that NABARD’s communications are advisory/suggestive and do not possess statutory force to override service gravity.

Factually, the Bank admitted that the petitioners performed perennial work, were qualified, worked against vacancies created by retirements since 2005, and had continuous service (evidenced by PF deductions).

Applying the *Casteribe* principles, the Court reasoned that continuing such an arrangement for over ten years—while paying consolidated wages far below regular scales—squarely falls under "unfair labour practice" as the object was clearly to deprive workers of permanency benefits.

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

The Court directed the respondent Bank to undertake an exercise within twelve weeks to regularize the petitioners against available vacant posts, subject to eligibility verification.

Upon regularization, petitioners are entitled to permanency with continuity of service and prospective pay in the regular scale.

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

Stay of the judgment requested by the Bank was rejected.