Facts: The petitioners were employed as clerks and peons on a temporary basis by the Nashik District Central Cooperative Bank (the respondent) for over ten years. Despite performing work of a perennial nature against vacant posts and possessing the requisite qualifications, they were denied permanency and regular service benefits like dearness allowance and increments. The respondent admitted that nearly 700 permanent staff had retired since 2005 and that no new permanent recruitment had occurred. However, the Bank contended it was legally precluded from granting permanency because the state government had not yet sanctioned its proposed staffing pattern of 1934 posts. They also relied on NABARD guidelines as binding regulatory barriers to unauthorized appointments.
Procedural Posture: The petitioners initially filed complaints before the Industrial Court, Nashik, alleging unfair labour practices. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaints on May 20, 2022, primarily on the grounds that the staffing pattern lacked official approval. The petitioners subsequently challenged this decision before the Bombay High Court via writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Issue: Whether the continuation of employees on temporary status for prolonged periods despite the existence of vacancies and perennial work constitutes an unfair labour practice, and whether the absence of a sanctioned staffing pattern acts as a legal bar to granting permanency.
Holding: Yes, the High Court held that the Bank engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 5 and 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act. The Court further held that the absence of a sanctioned staffing pattern is not an absolute legal barrier in the absence of a specific statutory prohibition.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 35 of the Banking Regulation Act and NABARD's communications are advisory and supervisory in nature and do not override state law regarding service conditions. Under Section 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, the state has the power to issue binding directions, but no such written order prohibiting staffing decisions was produced by the Bank. Applying the principle from the "Casteribe" judgment, the Court looked beyond the "temporary" label, noting that the Bank admitted the work was perennial and that vacancies existed. The Court concluded that keeping qualified employees on temporary status for over a decade to deny them benefits is a clear unfair labour practice. Consequently, the Court ordered the Bank to undertake a regularisation exercise for eligible petitioners.