High Court Directs Regularisation Of Long‑Serving Temporary Bank Staff Against Vacant Posts

A single‑judge bench of Justice Amit Borkar heard writ petitions filed under Article 227 challenging the Industrial Court, Nashik's Judgment and Award dated 20 May 2022, which had dismissed complaints by long‑serving temporary employees of a district central co‑operative bank alleging unfair labour practices. The petitions raised whether the Industrial Court erred in declining relief on the ground that the bank's staffing pattern had not been sanctioned.

The High Court allowed the petitions, quashed and set aside the Industrial Court award and held that the bank had engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 5 and 6 of Schedule IV of the [Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971](Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971). The Court directed the bank to undertake regularisation of eligible petitioners against available vacant posts within twelve weeks, subject to verification of educational qualifications and service records, ordered prospective grant of pay and service benefits from the date of regularisation and mandated computation and payment of any monetary benefits within sixteen weeks. The Court further enjoined the bank from terminating petitioners or altering their service conditions to their prejudice pending the exercise and rejected an oral application for stay. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The first principle is that regularisation does not automatically follow from long service. The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that courts cannot order regularisation in a manner which defeats statutory recruitment rules. Public employment cannot be filled through backdoor entry. If an appointment is made in complete violation of statutory requirements, such appointment cannot be validated merely because the employee has worked for many years." The judgment recorded that "The respondent Bank is held to have engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 5 and 6 of Schedule IV..."

Background
The petitions arose from complaints by about 400 employees (including the named petitioners) of Nashik District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., who alleged they were engaged on consolidated wages as temporary employees for more than ten years, performing perennial clerical and attendant work against vacant posts and were denied benefits, promotions and pay parity enjoyed by permanent staff. The Industrial Court had dismissed the complaints solely on the basis that the bank's staffing pattern had not received government approval.

On record the bank admitted that the work performed by petitioners was perennial, that provident fund contributions were deducted, that many permanent employees had ceased to be in service after 2005 and that a staffing pattern proposal for some 1,934 posts had been favourably recommended by the Divisional Registrar but not formally sanctioned by the State. The petitioners produced unshaken oral evidence and documentary material showing continuous engagement and parity of duties with permanent employees. The bank relied on supervisory communications and administrative constraints, including NABARD guidelines, and argued it could not regularise employees in the absence of sanctioned posts.

The High Court analysed the legal framework, distinguishing advisory supervisory communications from statutory directions and examining Section 79A of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies legislation as the source by which the State Government could lawfully prescribe or approve staffing patterns. The Court referred to Supreme Court principles on regularisation (as discussed in Casteribe), noting that long service alone did not automatically confer permanency but that Item 6 of Schedule IV empowered the Industrial Court to remedy prolonged temporary engagements intended to deny permanency. Observing the absence of any written order under Section 79A legally restraining the bank, the Court concluded that the Industrial Court had misapplied the law in refusing relief and therefore granted the remedy of regularisation subject to verification and procedural safeguards.

Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO.11137 OF 2024 (with connected matters)
Case Title: Shivaji Madhav Jadhav & Ors. v. Nashik District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S.R. Nargolkar i/by Mr. I.M. Khairdi
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vishwanath Patil with Mr. Harshwardhan Karande and Mr. Kedar Nhavkar

Source: 2026 CaseBase(BOM) 65