Prolonged Use Of Temporary Employment Despite Vacancies Amounts To Unfair Labour Practice: Bombay High Court
Petitioners argued that though they performed work of a permanent and perennial nature, the Bank deliberately denied them permanency and benefits available to regular employees
Justice Amit Borkar, Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that continuing employees on a temporary basis for years despite the existence of vacant posts and availability of permanent work constitutes an unfair labour practice under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices (MRTU & PULP) Act, 1971.
The petitioners, working as clerks and peons in different branches of the Nashik District Central Co-operative Bank, contended that they had been continuously employed for more than a decade but were kept on temporary status and paid consolidated wages. They alleged that although they performed work of a permanent and perennial nature and were appointed against vacant posts, the Bank deliberately denied them permanency and benefits available to regular employees.
Justice Amit Borkar while allowing a batch of writ petitions filed challenging an Industrial Court award dismissing their complaints alleging unfair labour practices, observed, “…The work is permanent. The service of the petitioners is long and continuous. The need for manpower is admitted. Vacancies exist. Yet the employees remain on temporary status without benefits available to permanent staff. At the same time the Court remains conscious that regularisation cannot be granted in violation of statutory provisions. Relief must therefore be granted in a manner consistent with law. In the present case the existence of statutory power under Section 79A and the absence of any binding prohibition become relevant considerations. Once it is seen that there is no statutory direction preventing staffing decisions, the denial of permanency cannot be justified on that ground”.
“Another circumstance which cannot be ignored is the difference in service conditions. Permanent employees performing similar duties received regular pay scales, allowances, leave benefits and opportunities for advancement. The petitioners, however, continued to receive fixed consolidated wages. Applying the principles laid down in Casteribe, the Court must consider whether the conduct of the employer falls within Item 6 of Schedule IV. This item refers to the practice of keeping employees temporary with the object of depriving them of permanency”, the Bench further observed.
Advocate S.R. Nargolkar appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Vishwanath Patil appeared for the respondent.
In the petition, it was pointed out that while the sanctioned staffing strength of the Bank was 1934 workmen, only about 1200 permanent employees were actually working, and nearly 700 posts had fallen vacant due to retirement, resignation and other reasons.
However, despite these vacancies, the Bank continued engaging the petitioners and other workers on temporary terms, paying them significantly lower consolidated wages and denying them allowances, leave benefits, promotions and other service advantages available to permanent employees.
The Bank argued that it could not regularise the petitioners because the proposed staffing pattern had not yet received approval from the State Government. It submitted that temporary appointments were made only to prevent disruption of banking operations across the district.
Therefore, upon examining the facts and rules, the Court found that the Industrial Court had failed to properly appreciate the evidence and admissions made by the Bank. The Court noted that the Bank itself had admitted that the petitioners were working against vacant posts. Further that the work performed by them was perennial in nature, and the Bank had a substantial shortage of permanent staff.
In such circumstances, the Court held that keeping the employees on temporary status for prolonged periods with the object of denying them benefits of permanency amounted to unfair labour practices under Items 5 and 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act.
The Court, thus, while setting aside the Industrial Court’s judgment dated 20-05-2022, directed the Bank to:
-Conduct an exercise within 12 weeks to regularise the petitioners against available vacant posts, subject to verification of eligibility and qualifications.
-Grant permanency with continuity of service to eligible employees.
-Provide regular pay scale and service benefits prospectively from the date of regularisation.
-Refrain from terminating the services of the petitioners or altering their service conditions to their detriment until the exercise is completed.
Cause Title: Shivaji Madhav Jadhav & Ors. v. Nashik District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd [Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:10655]
Appearances:
Petitioners: S.R. Nargolkar, I.M. Khairdi, Advocates.
Respondent: Vishwanath Patil with Harshwardhan Karande, Kedar Nhavkar, Advocates. Hiraman Sukhdeo Nalawde, Manager, Administration Department.