Case Note & Summary
The dispute involved multiple writ petitions filed by temporary employees against the Respondent, challenging the Industrial Court's dismissal of their complaints alleging unfair labour practices under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The petitioners, appointed as clerks and peons over ten years prior, claimed they were engaged in permanent and perennial work against vacant posts but were denied permanency and subjected to discriminatory treatment in wages, benefits, and privileges compared to permanent employees. They cited Items 5, 6, 9, and 10 of Schedule IV of the Act, alleging violations including discrimination, continuation on temporary basis to deny permanency, and breach of settlement and statutory provisions. The Bank admitted that the work was perennial, that permanent recruitment had ceased since 2005, and that temporary employees were essential to maintain operations due to workforce reduction. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaints solely because the staffing pattern lacked approval. In the High Court, the petitioners argued that the Industrial Court erred by not considering the Bank's admissions and the merits of the case. The Bank's counsel did not contest the admissions. The High Court analyzed the pleadings and found that the Industrial Court's dismissal was based on an incorrect premise, as the staffing pattern approval was not a prerequisite for adjudicating unfair labour practices. The court emphasized that the Bank's admissions supported the petitioners' claims of perennial work and discrimination. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the Industrial Court's judgment, and remanded the complaints for a fresh decision on merits, directing the Industrial Court to expedite the proceedings.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practices - Items 5, 6, 9, and 10 of Schedule IV - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Petitioners, temporary employees appointed over ten years prior, alleged denial of permanency and discriminatory treatment compared to permanent employees performing similar work - Industrial Court dismissed complaints solely due to lack of staffing pattern approval - High Court held that the Industrial Court's approach was erroneous as it failed to consider the Bank's admissions and the nature of the work, which was perennial and against vacant posts - Directed the Industrial Court to decide the complaints on merits (Paras 1-3).
B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - High Court of Bombay exercised supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to quash the Industrial Court's judgment and award dated 20 May 2022 - The petitions challenged the dismissal of complaints alleging unfair labour practices - High Court found the Industrial Court's decision unsustainable and remanded the matter for fresh consideration on merits (Paras 1-2).
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: Whether the Industrial Court erred in dismissing the 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, solely on the ground that the staffing pattern had not received approval
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the Judgment and Award dated 20 May 2022 passed by the Industrial Court, Nashik, and remanded the complaints to the Industrial Court for a fresh decision on merits, directing expedited proceedings
2026 LawText (BOM) (03) 19
Writ Petition No. 11137 of 2024 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.11138 OF 2024 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.15136 OF 2022 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.14973 OF 2022 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.14972 OF 2022 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.11139 OF 2024 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.15135 OF 2022 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.15146 OF 2022 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.15134 OF 2022 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.15145 OF 2022 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.14974 OF 2022 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6647 OF 2024 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6930 OF 2024 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6922 OF 2024
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
Shivaji Madhav Jadhav, Ajay Ashok Sawant, Kundan Popat Pawar, Prashant Balasaheb Ghade, Shivbhushan S. Gavare, Sunil Santosh Pagar, Anita Dagu Thakare, Shilpa M. Katkade, Amol Bhausaheb Gunjal, Kiran Rohidas Bajare, Ravindra Ramdas Arote, Sachin Dattu Surashe, Chetan Trambak Murkute, Raju Baban Darade & Others, Anil Pandurang Sonavane & Others, Tushar Baliram Bachhav & Others, Deepak Parshram Deore & Others, Kiran Ambadas Ghuge & Others, Meghdeep Deepak Sawant & Others, Shekhar Bhausaheb Hjre & Others, Sonali Rajendra Shirke & Others, Suresh Baburao Dakane & Others, Bharat Hari Mengale & Others, Sarika Sanjay Pawar & Others, Shubhangi S. Sonawane & Others, Somnath Baburao Deore & Others
Nashik District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd
Premium Content
The Indexes are only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case indexes
Nature of Litigation: Writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Industrial Court's dismissal of complaints alleging unfair labour practices
Remedy Sought
Petitioners seek quashing of the Industrial Court's Judgment and Award dated 20 May 2022 and a direction for the Industrial Court to decide the complaints on merits
Filing Reason
The Industrial Court dismissed the complaints solely on the ground that the staffing pattern had not received approval, without considering the merits and the Bank's admissions
Previous Decisions
Industrial Court, Nashik, dismissed the complaints by Judgment and Award dated 20 May 2022
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court erred in dismissing the 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, solely on the ground that the staffing pattern had not received approval
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that they were appointed against vacant posts, performed perennial work, and were denied permanency and benefits, constituting unfair labour practices
Respondent Bank admitted that the work was perennial, permanent recruitment ceased since 2005, and temporary employees were essential, but did not contest the admissions in court
Ratio Decidendi
The Industrial Court's dismissal of complaints alleging unfair labour practices was erroneous as it was based solely on the lack of staffing pattern approval, without considering the Bank's admissions and the merits of the case, including the perennial nature of work and discriminatory treatment
Judgment Excerpts
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
The Industrial Court dismissed the complaints solely on the ground that the staffing pattern had not received approval
Procedural History
Workmen filed complaints alleging unfair labour practices before the Industrial Court, which were dismissed on 20 May 2022; petitioners filed writ petitions in the High Court under Article 227, which were heard and decided by a common judgment on 5 March 2026
Premium Content
The Indexes are only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case indexes
