The Bombay High Court has held that continuing employees on temporary status for long periods despite admitted vacancies and perennial work amounts to unfair labour practice under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
The case arose from complaints filed by several employees working as clerks and peons in the Nashik District Central Co-operative Bank. The workers alleged that although they were appointed against vacant posts and had been continuously working for more than a decade performing duties of permanent nature, the Bank deliberately continued them on temporary status and paid them consolidated wages while denying benefits available to permanent employees. The Industrial Court dismissed their complaints solely on the ground that the Bank’s staffing pattern had not received approval.
Allowing the writ petitions, Justice Amit Borkar held that the Industrial Court had failed to properly appreciate the factual admissions and the applicable legal principles governing unfair labour practices.
The Court noted that the Bank itself admitted that the petitioners were performing work of a perennial nature and were engaged against vacancies created after several permanent employees left service. The Court noted:
“The Bank has admitted that the work performed by the petitioners is of a perennial nature. When an employer itself acknowledges that the work is permanent and necessary for the day-to-day functioning of the institution, it indicates that the work exists on a continuing basis and is not temporary or seasonal.”
The Court further found that the petitioners had been working continuously for several years, with provident fund deductions made from their wages, and were performing duties identical to those discharged by permanent employees. The Bank’s defence that permanency could not be granted due to absence of sanctioned staffing pattern was rejected because no statutory order imposing such restriction had been placed on record.
Explaining the legal position, the Court held that mere reliance on administrative guidelines could not override statutory provisions:
“The argument that every communication issued by NABARD becomes binding in matters relating to staffing cannot be accepted… such communications do not operate as statutory directions.”
The Court emphasised that unless a binding direction under Section 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act is produced, the employer cannot claim that it was legally prohibited from making staffing decisions.
Applying the principles governing unfair labour practices, the Court held that the conduct of the Bank squarely fell within Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. Finding that the petitioners had been kept temporary for prolonged periods despite existence of vacancies and continuous work, the Court concluded that the Industrial Court’s decision was unsustainable.
The High Court accordingly quashed the Industrial Court’s award and held that the Bank had engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 5 and 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. It directed the Bank to undertake an exercise for regularisation of the petitioners against available vacant posts within twelve weeks, subject to verification of eligibility, and to grant them permanency with continuity of service and applicable pay scale prospectively.
Appearances
Mr. S.R. Nargolkar i/by Mr. I.M. Khairdi for the petitioners. Mr. Vishwanath Patil with Mr. Harshwardhan Karande and Mr. Kedar Nhavkar for the respondent-Bank. Mr. Hiraman Sukhdeo Nalawde, Manager, Administration Department, is present.
