Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Amit Borkar, J.
Shivaji Madhav Jadhav - Petitioner
Versus
Nashik District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd - Respondent
Writ Petition No.11137 of 2024, Writ Petition No.11138 of 2024, Writ Petition No.11139 of 2024, Writ Petition No.14972 of 2022, Writ Petition No.14973 of 2022, Writ Petition No.14974 of 2022, Writ Petition No.15134 of 2022, Writ Petition No.15135 of 2022, Writ Petition No.15136 of 2022, Writ Petition No.15145 of 2022, Writ Petition No.15146 of 2022, Writ Petition No.6647 of 2024, Writ Petition No.6922 of 2024, Writ Petition No.6930 of 2024
Decided On : 05-03-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. workmen allege unfair practices denying permanency benefits (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. long continuous service against vacancies warrants permanency (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. no permanency absent sanctioned staffing pattern approval (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 4. nabard guidelines advisory, not statutorily binding (Para 22 , 23) |
| 5. admitted perennial work amid manpower shortages vacancies (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 6. nabard communications supervisory, lacking binding force (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 7. section 79a empowers binding state directions staffing (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 8. item 6 unfair practice denying permanency perennial work (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68) |
JUDGMENT :
AMIT BORKAR, J.
1. As the questions of law and fact arising in all the present writ petitions are common, all the petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. By the present writ petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the Judgment and Award dated 20 May 2022 passed by the Industrial Court, Nashik, in the complaints which form the subject matter of each petition.
3. The facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that the workmen filed complaints alleging unfair labour practices under Items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaints solely on the ground that the staffing pattern had not received approval. The petitioners were appointed more than ten years prior to the filing of the complaints, some as clerks and others as peons. According to them, though appointed against vacant posts and engaged in work of permanent and perennial nature, they were denied permanency and continued as temporary employees for several years, thereby attracting Item 6 of Schedule IV. It was further alleged that they were subjected to discrimination, irrespective of merit, inasmuch as they were denied benefits and privileges available to permanent employees performing identical or similar work, constituting unfair labour practice under Item 5. It was also contended that despite entitlement, they were not regularised, resulting in violation of the applicable Standing Orders and denial of benefits flowing from the settlement executed between the Bank and the representative union, in contravention of the provisions of the Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1947, thereby attracting Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV.
4. The petitioners set out, in paragraph 1 of the complaint, the names of the employees represented, the posts held by them, their educational qualifications, provident fund numbers, and the consolidated wages paid to them. It was specifically pleaded that they were appointed against vacant posts and possessed the requisite qualifications for such posts. The petitioners averred that they accepted appointment letters containing unfair and unlawful terms owing to financial hardship and the necessity of employment. It was further pleaded that they had been continuously working from the date of initial appointment without any termination, including technical breaks, and that provident fund contributions were regularly deducted from their salaries. The complaint also referred to the sanctioned staffing strength of 1934 workmen as against 1270 permanent workmen actually working. It was pleaded that approximately 700 permanent workmen had ceased to be in service due to superannuation, voluntary retirement, death, or other reasons, and that no permanent recruitment had taken place after 2005 despite the resulting vacancies. The petitioners asserted that the work performed was perennial in nature and that they were required to discharge duties of a permanent character. It was further pleaded that the
Prolonged temporary engagement of workers on perennial duties against admitted vacancies, denying permanency and equal benefits despite continuous service, constitutes unfair labour practices under I....
Long-term engagement of employees for over 240 days establishes entitlement to regularization, reinforcing the principle against unfair labor practices applicable to public sector employment.
Regularization of service requires proof of unfair labor practices; long service alone does not confer entitlement without due procedure.
Temporary or part-time employees cannot claim regularization merely based on length of service without sanctioned posts, and must seek remedies through the designated Industrial Tribunal.
The court upheld the Tribunal's awards for employee regularization, emphasizing the prohibition of unfair labor practices under the Industrial Disputes Act, while clarifying the need for state approv....
The court upheld the Tribunal's order for regularization of workers, finding the Municipality's prolonged employment practices constituted unfair labor practices under the Industrial Disputes Act.
The court upheld the Tribunal's order for regularization of employees, citing unfair labor practices by the Municipality in retaining them on temporary wages despite available posts.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
